From owner-freebsd-chat  Thu Apr 19  9:32:27 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from guru.mired.org (okc-65-26-235-186.mmcable.com [65.26.235.186])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B1C2937B43E
	for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from mwm@mired.org)
Received: (qmail 56349 invoked by uid 100); 19 Apr 2001 16:32:22 -0000
From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15071.4885.960509.549593@guru.mired.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:32:21 -0500
To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Cc: Jamie Bowden <ragnar@sysabend.org>,
	James Howard <howardjp@well.com>,
	Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in>,
	Joseph Mallett <jmallett@newgold.net>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: banner(6)
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010419092019.04484770@localhost>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10104181512060.71134-100000@moo.sysabend.org>
	<Pine.GSO.4.21.0104180641460.517-100000@well.com>
	<4.3.2.7.2.20010419092019.04484770@localhost>
X-Mailer: VM 6.90 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid
X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`;h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG%
 *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> types:
> At 01:26 AM 4/19/2001, Mike Meyer wrote:
> >So what did he call a collection of programs that are used to render a
> >typeface? 
> I didn't call it anything.... I said that Adobe, and later others,
> mistakenly called it a "font."

You are answering a question that I didn't ask you, and wasn't
directed at you.

> The correct term is, or should be, "digital typeface," "scalable
> typeface," or "typeface rendering software."

So the non-scalable bitmaps that uses to display characters should be
called a "typeface"? Since they are also digital, wouldn't "digital
typeface" also be correct?

> >Quoting the comp.fonts faq (my references are in storage), question
> >1.12:
> >
> >        A typeface is a set of lettters, numbers, and other symbolic
> >        characters that are related by repeating design elements [...].
> >Classicaly, when you bought a font you got a rendering of a typeface
> >at a specific size and weight from a specific foundry designed to be
> >set on a specific kind of machine. 
> Yes.

> >When you buy a non-scalable
> >computer font, that's exactly what you get, except the machine they
> >are set on is now software. Scalable computer fonts are the same,
> >except they are no longer tied to a specific size.
> No. The term "scalable font" is a misnomer; it really isn't a font at 
> all. It produces MANY fonts from an internal description of a typeface.

You're not refuting what I said, you're quibbling about the
terminology. Since what I said demonstrates that "scalable font" is
not a misnomer, you need to deal with the statement, not the
terminology.

Just because non-scalable fonts (someone got a better retronym?) don't
produce many fonts doesn't mean that scalable fonts can't, in much the
same way that analog watches always having hands don't mean that
digital watches have to have them.

	<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>			http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message