Hi Phil, On 11/05/2016, 9:12 PM, "lilypond-user on behalf of Phil Holmes" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>2. It's a bit more complicated, though. 16th century printers have a habit >of eliding an n from a word and instead putting what looks like (but might >not be) a tiny tilde above the previous letter to show this. I was also wondering why you were not using Unicode. Anyway, do you have any images showing examples of this 16c practice? I would be interested to have a look. This is, as you say, a different requirement to using a fixed unicode glyph from a font. I think I have seen similar practice in 18c English printed text, but I don’t think the wiggles that I have seen are tildes as such. You are reaLly after something for text glyphs that is similar to an ornament on a note glyph. Now that I come to think of it, there is a vast typographic tradition of putting symbols on top of letters to mean various abbreviations, for example the old No. with a bar over the o to mean the abbreviation for number. A really interesting topic. The scheme code is definitely worth having in hand. Andrew _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
