Stylistic Sets — have to be consecutive?

Adam Jagosz
Adam Jagosz Posts: 689
edited February 2020 in Technique and Theory
Is it too strange to allocate stylistic sets 1–13 + 18–20, leaving 14–17 reserved for future use? I'm also thinking about compatibility of sets between members of a family that differ in available sets, and a bit about making the numbers correlate to the feature they activate in a mnemonic way (however weird that sounds).
Tagged:

Comments

  • Jens Kutilek
    Jens Kutilek Posts: 361
    No.
  • Thomas Phinney
    Thomas Phinney Posts: 2,883
    It is not a big deal technically, although depending on how you do it, it may look odd to users.

    If it is done to make members of a family coordinate... well, I have done that myself.

    Although ... if convenient, I am inclined to arrange the sets so as to put the non-shared styles at the end. And also to group the non-shared styles so that the ones that are held in common for given subsets of styles are consecutively numbered.
  • John Hudson
    John Hudson Posts: 3,186
    I have an admittedly idiosyncratic approach: I used stylistic sets counting upwards from 01 for actual stylistic variants, and I use sets counting downwards from 20 for situations where I've been obliged to use these features as workarounds for software bugs.

Categories