[MEI-L] symbol/symbolDef

[TW]

2012/3/20 Laurent Pugin <laurent at music.mcgill.ca>:
> I agree with Thomas that SVG is probably the best choice. I also think
> that it would be a good idea to have <symbolDef> as a placeholder for
> SVG rather than defining our own shapes. I guess we are not directly
> talking about rendering MEI here, but more about including the
> encoding of shapes within a MEI document, so I don't see any reason
> why we should restrict the use to a subset of SVG.
>

>From Perry's post I got the impression that the module's intent indeed
was to provide symbols for rendering.  If not, then we'd only be
saying something like "See, this is how this symbol looks like", and
the symbol's dimensions and origin wouldn't be significant.  In this
case, I'd think it would be more (or at least similarly) adequate to
link to an example in the facsimile rather than redrawing the symbol.
This was my initial understanding that I expressed in the original
post.  It would basically provide a means of classifying and
identifying different kinds of symbols, especially ones that aren't
covered by MEI (and maybe shouldn't be because they are only used by a
certain scribe/composer/very special notation or only in a single
work).

Thomas