Point taken.
However, in this case, the glyph desired (let's call it a pre-1985 oriscus)
is not available in Greciliae. The pre-1985 oriscus and the gabc "o" glyph
both represent an oriscus, just in two "typefaces". The pre-1985 oriscus
looks like neither the gabc "o" glyph nor the gabc "o<" glyph. Both gabc
glyphs are a wavy figure within the confines of a square punctum, while the
pre-1985 oriscus looks more like a punctum auctum descendens with an
additional ascending tail on its left side.
I think the way to deal with this without starting an emacs-vs-vi-like
"religious war" is to add a glyph to Greciliae and select it using either a
gabc header or a new character sequence.
Regards,
Henry
On August 6, 2014 6:05:02 PM Pierre Couderc <[email protected]> wrote:
On 08/06/2014 11:33 PM, Henry So Jr. wrote:
> I am in the former camp, so I would choose
> to encode that figure as an ordinary oriscus ("o") if the Antiphonale
> Monasticum (1934) intends it as an ordinary oriscus as opposed to an
> oriscus auctus.
Mmm, i feel that I am in both camps. The strength of gregorio is that it
is independent of any camp.
It tries to be able to reproduce any book. Not to choose what is is the
good book or the good way.
You can produce what you want with gregorio.
But in gregobase, it is not the same thing, I think that you must
reproduce exactly the book you are reproducing.
_______________________________________________
Gregorio-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-users
