Hi all, LilyPond's catalog of shape-note noteheads is unique because it contains three full sets of noteheads--Aikin (default), Funk, and Walker. Even if some noteheads are similar between the three sets, they are deliberately defined separately and have slightly different looks.* SMuFL has no provision for this: it defines only one set of shape-note noteheads for all three styles.
My current plan is to define the Aikin noteheads as described in the SMuFL specs, while the other two sets will be stylistic alternates with "Funk" or "Walker" appended to their SMuFL names. When LilyPond needs one of the latter styles, it can try to look for these alternate glyphs first, and, if they are not found, resort to the base glyphs SMuFL defines. The real issue is how other programs are going to read Emmentaler's full Funk and Walker sets. They will expect e.g. noteShapeKeystoneBlack, a Walker-only glyph, to be found somewhere in the font, but at this point only noteShapeKeystoneBlackWalker (u2doWalker) has been defined. One solution is to give our versions of such glyphs a secondary Unicode codepoint where SMuFL expects it. However, it would look off compared to the other glyphs, which would automatically be taken from our Aikin set. Another solution is to describe Walker and Funk as style sets. This will allow other programs to throw an error when, e.g. noteShapeKeystoneBlack isn't found in the font, notifying the user that something's wrong. If the correct styleset is used, the program will correctly display every notehead in that style. This would probably require documentation so that Emmentaler users know that the alternate styles are there in the first place. A third solution is to request that the Funk and Walter systems be encoded in SMuFL separately from the main set. But of course that's a tall order, and on top of that we'd force Emmentaler users to wait until their program of choice updates to the new version of SMuFL, if it ever does. I'm leaning toward the second option, but I'm open to suggestions. Out of these three (or any others you can think of), what do you all think would work the best? Thanks, Owen * (para. 1) With the exception that Walker has no "so", using Funk's instead.
