On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 10:21:38PM +0200, Marek Klein wrote:
> there are some glyphs in the "Table with nabc strings and corresponding
> gregall and gresgmodern glyphs" (GregorioNabcRef.pdf) marked as missing. Is
> it because the glyphs were not found in manuscripts?
It depends on in which column it is.
missing in the second column (gregall font) indeed means the glyph wasn't
found in the manuscript, but every now and then I'm able to find further
glyphs. In some cases it is a nabc representation of some original
Bellaigue abbey sgmodern glyph that I even don't know if it really is known
to exist in the Mss.
Sometimes when I try to typeset a new antiphon or especially responsory,
I find some further glyphs and add them to the font.
If you find some missing or useful glyph yourself, feel free to tell me
where to find it (which Ms, page and where on the page) and I'll happily add
it to the font.
IMHO in the gregall font, usually combining various pp* suffixes with base
glyphs
looks not too ugly and similarly for the significative letters around (sure,
the 8 possible locations aren't sometimes precise enough, especially for
Einsiedeln 121), while the su* suffixes unless they have glyphs in the font
usually look quite ugly and need new glyphs to be drawn.
I have some plans on using TrueType accent points for better su* placement
and perhaps also for the significative letters, but didn't get to that yet.
missing in the third column (gresgmodern font) most often means just some
glyph with significative letters, with the glyph missing nothing really bad
happens, the letter is put there by the lua script. The gresgmodern is not
really tested to be usable though, I'm just trying to keep it roughly in
sync with gregall when adding new glyphs.
Jakub
_______________________________________________
Gregorio-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-users
