I think that the two boxes
11
11
222++222
2 11 2
222++222
11
11
should suffice for most practical purposes...
Maybe. This is something which should be tested as soon as someone is
going to write support for it.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Freitag, 14. August 2009 06:54:45 schrieb David Kastrup:
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
FWIW, I used to think that this would be a very important feature;
now I'm not so sure. There are certainly a few cases (eg. slurs,
hairpins, treble
2009/8/11 Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com:
Then I propose the following Dutch-English changes:
Added as
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=830
(just in case we can't do it in a near future)
Regards,
Valentin
___
lilypond-devel
However, we need a mechanism to improve the more critical cases.
Maybe attaching some ghost characters without actual content to
the glyphs might be possible, where the total outline is determined
by overlaying all the bounding boxes?
This is a very nice idea! For example, the
|
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
However, we need a mechanism to improve the more critical cases.
Maybe attaching some ghost characters without actual content to
the glyphs might be possible, where the total outline is determined
by overlaying all the bounding boxes?
This is a very
FWIW, I used to think that this would be a very important feature;
now I'm not so sure. There are certainly a few cases (eg. slurs,
hairpins, treble clefs) where having more accurate outlines would
help.
It would also help in improved positioning of accidentals.
But the list is fairly
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
FWIW, I used to think that this would be a very important feature;
now I'm not so sure. There are certainly a few cases (eg. slurs,
hairpins, treble clefs) where having more accurate outlines would
help.
It would also help in improved positioning of
So, if I am understanding correctly, LilyPond currently uses the
same dimensions for both the metrics box and the bounding box
for each glyph. This is why the longa glyph, for example, is
cropped in the EPS/PNG output. Is this true?
I think so. On the other hand, we need an exact bbox only
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Werner LEMBERGw...@gnu.org wrote:
One has to keep in mind that Metafont does not permit more than 16
different heights per font (something like that, I don't remember
the exact details).
Yes, this problem already bites us. I'll add a bug tracker item which
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Patrick McCartypnor...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any guidelines LilyPond adheres to for creating bounding
boxes?
For example, when I adjusted the bbox for the \eyeglasses markup
command, I _underestimated_ the bbox. Should I have slightly
_overestimated_
Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Werner LEMBERGw...@gnu.org wrote:
One has to keep in mind that Metafont does not permit more than 16
different heights per font (something like that, I don't remember
the exact details).
Yes, this problem already
I'll add a bug tracker item which suggests to split the Metafont
output into even smaller units, say, 16 glyphs per subfont, to
circumvent the problem.
This is red herring. The metrics for feta are computed by parsing the
metafont .log file. The .TFM files are unused, because of the
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
They were an in-crowd joke at some point, but I think the joke
has lasted long enough. I approve of changes that bring
regularity in this file naming scheme.
Then I propose the following Dutch-English changes:
feta-banier feta-flags
feta-beugel
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Mark Poleskymarkpole...@yahoo.com wrote:
They were an in-crowd joke at some point, but I think the joke
has lasted long enough. I approve of changes that bring
regularity in this file naming scheme.
Then I propose the following Dutch-English changes:
feta-pendaalfeta-pedal
Perhaps feta-pedalsigns?
feta-accordion feta-accordion
feta-accordionsigns?
feta-timesigfeta-timesig
feta-timesignatures?
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
- Original Message
From: Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com
To: Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com
Cc: Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org; lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 11:57:48 AM
Subject: Re: Guidelines for bounding boxes?
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:47 PM
On 8/11/09 12:47 PM, Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com wrote:
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
They were an in-crowd joke at some point, but I think the joke
has lasted long enough. I approve of changes that bring
regularity in this file naming scheme.
Then I propose the following
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 07:02:39AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Also, in the case of Metafont glyphs, there doesn't appear to be a
clear convention: some bounding boxes are underestimated, but others
are overestimated.
What you call `bounding boxes' aren't real bboxes but the metrics
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 20:03 -0700, Patrick McCarty wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 07:02:39AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Another improvement would be to provide `shaped metrics': Currently,
the metrics for a glyph consist of a single rectangle. This could be
extended to a list of
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
Are there any guidelines LilyPond adheres to for creating bounding
boxes?
No.
For example, when I adjusted the bbox for the \eyeglasses markup
command, I _underestimated_ the bbox. Should I have slightly
_overestimated_ instead? Attached is a PNG
One has to keep in mind that Metafont does not permit more than 16
different heights per font (something like that, I don't remember
the exact details).
Yes, this problem already bites us. I'll add a bug tracker item which
suggests to split the Metafont output into even smaller units, say,
I'll add a bug tracker item which suggests to split the Metafont
output into even smaller units, say, 16 glyphs per subfont, to
circumvent the problem. It's basically a logistic change which can
be done even with minimal knowledge of the Metafont language --
perhaps this is something for a
Hi Werner,
if you can explain me what should I do, I would try to make it.
--
Marek Klein
http://gregoriana.sk
2009/8/10 Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org
I'll add a bug tracker item which suggests to split the Metafont
output into even smaller units, say, 16 glyphs per subfont, to
circumvent
if you can explain me what should I do, I would try to make it.
OK. However, it seems to be more complicated than thougth at a first
glance. Anyway, here a rough outline how it could be done.
1. Metafont is called for those fonts:
feta11.mf, feta13.mf, ...,
feta-braces-a.mf,
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
feta-eindelijk
feta-toevallig
feta-arrow
feta-puntje
feta-bolletjes
feta-schrift
feta-banier
feta-klef
feta-timesig
feta-pendaal
feta-haak
feta-accordion
I've always wished those were in English.
-
feta-eindelijk
feta-toevallig
feta-arrow
feta-puntje
feta-bolletjes
feta-schrift
feta-banier
feta-klef
feta-timesig
feta-pendaal
feta-haak
feta-accordion
I've always wished those were in English.
Well, it isn't. I think
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
I've always wished those were in English.
Well, it isn't. I think this is a good thing. Not everything in the
world should be US-centric.
I wasn't meaning to sound US-centric; I'm more concerned with
wasting developers' time with hard-to-read code.
- Mark
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Mark Poleskymarkpole...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've always wished those were in English.
Well, it isn't. I think this is a good thing. Not everything in the
world should be US-centric.
I wasn't meaning to sound US-centric; I'm more concerned with
wasting
Hi,
Are there any guidelines LilyPond adheres to for creating bounding
boxes?
For example, when I adjusted the bbox for the \eyeglasses markup
command, I _underestimated_ the bbox. Should I have slightly
_overestimated_ instead? Attached is a PNG displaying the bbox.
Also, in the case of
Are there any guidelines LilyPond adheres to for creating bounding
boxes?
No.
For example, when I adjusted the bbox for the \eyeglasses markup
command, I _underestimated_ the bbox. Should I have slightly
_overestimated_ instead? Attached is a PNG displaying the bbox.
I think
30 matches
Mail list logo
