Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:21:39 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Andrew McKay <birminghamweb@freeuk.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: banner(6) Message-ID: <15071.22243.763885.211483@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104191958020.7067-100000@fluoxetine.openirc.co.uk> References: <15071.12790.558553.182177@guru.mired.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104191958020.7067-100000@fluoxetine.openirc.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew McKay <birminghamweb@freeuk.com> types: > 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: Accepted. > typeface - 'a design for a set of characters, regardless of size' > > font - 'a typeface scaled to a specific size and density'. Note that neither of these two definitions describes what adobe calls a "scalable font". > 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). That definition *does* cover what Adobe calls a "scalable 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. > > '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'. In other words, cheap knockoffs are "scalable fonts", but properly designed systems are "digital typefaces". Gads, the attempts to retrofit this terminology just keeps getting uglier and uglier! Well, a digital typeface must be a digital "design for a set of characters". But that doesn't describe the object in question *either*. They aren't a design; they're an implementation of a design. > 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. That's actually the only good argument I've seen for why they should be called typefaces. It still doesn't quite feel right, because you've shifted the active verb from "being" to "containing". A collection of metal fonts contains the information needed to render the fonts; does that make that collection of fonts a typeface? Thanx, <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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15071.22243.763885.211483>