Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:36:53 +0100 (BST) From: Andrew McKay <birminghamweb@freeuk.com> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Cc: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Subject: Re: banner(6) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104191958020.7067-100000@fluoxetine.openirc.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <15071.12790.558553.182177@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
MM> I've never seen "typeface" defined that way, and it's not the MM> definition of a typeface that's been quoted - and accepted - here. OK then. Thanks for not allowing me to use different words to say exactly the same thing. I'll reiterate the definitions that have been agreed upon in this thread: typeface - 'a design for a set of characters, regardless of size' font - 'a typeface scaled to a specific size and density'. I'll also quote the Free OnLine Dictionary Of Computing (http://www.foldoc.org)'s definitions of the words in a computing context: font - A set of images representing the characters from some particular character set in a particular size and typeface. The image of each character may be encoded either as a bitmap (in a bitmap font) or by a higher-level description in terms of lines and areas (an outline font). There are several different computer representations for fonts, the most widely known are Adobe Systems, Inc.'s PostScript font definitions and Apple's TrueType. Most window systems support displaying different fonts on the screen and printing them. typeface The style or design of a font. Other independent parameters are size, boldness (thickness of lines), and obliqueness (a sheer transformation applied to the characters, not to be confused with a specifically designed italic font). I think the problem we have here is that there are two ways that a computer can render fonts, as has been discussed on this thread before. They may consist of a single font and simply shrink or grow this font. On Tuesday you yourself said: 'If your postscript font merely multiplies by a factor of X, it's a pretty poor font.' If it simply takes a font and scales it up and down with no due regard to the overall usability of the result then I would agree it is a pretty poor font but, combining the definitions of the word 'scalable' and 'font' this is exactly what it is. If, however, the 'scalable font' has knowledge of what it need do to render a readable/usable font, no matter what the size &c. (and again, I refer you to one of your own posts on Tuesday: 'Correctly written PostScript fonts behave as you describe, maintaining density as you scale them.') then it is no longer acting as a 'scalable font' but is now acting as a font rendering engine working off a 'digital typeface'. So, in conclusion, the behaviour of a 'scalable font', by definition MUST be different from that of a 'digital typeface'. QED. That is EXACTLY what Brett was saying when you harshly accused him of 'quibbling about terminology'. MM> typeface is a collection of letters, numbers and symbols & so on. MM> Given that definition, "digital typeface" is a misnomer, because MM> they are collections of programs that produce elements of the MM> typeface when used, much like a font is a collection of metal bits MM> that produce elements of a typeface when used. By the same token a cat is a fish and so all cats can breathe underwater. A typeface is NOT 'a collection of letters, numbers and symbols and so on'. A typeface is the design information required to render a font. Blueprints are NOT a building. They are the design information required to produce a building. Digital typeface is more correct because they contain the design information required to render fonts digitally. MM> While the program collections in question don't fit properly into MM> either category, they have more in common with fonts than typefaces I'll not bother repeating myself. You are wrong in this assertion. *************************************** Andrew McKay <birminghamweb@freeuk.com> Located near Birmingham, England Catalogue available on request *************************************** To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0104191958020.7067-100000>