Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 19 Apr 2001 02:26:59 -0500
From:      Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>
To:        Jamie Bowden <ragnar@sysabend.org>
Cc:        James Howard <howardjp@well.com>, Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>, Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in>, Joseph Mallett <jmallett@newgold.net>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: banner(6)
Message-ID:  <15070.37699.876831.515060@guru.mired.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10104181512060.71134-100000@moo.sysabend.org>
References:  <Pine.GSO.4.21.0104180641460.517-100000@well.com> <Pine.BSF.4.10.10104181512060.71134-100000@moo.sysabend.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jamie Bowden <ragnar@sysabend.org> types:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, James Howard wrote:
> :On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Brett Glass wrote:
> :> That's because Adobe misuses the term. I come from a family which
> :> includes several generations of typesetters and type designers. 
> :> The correct meaning of the word "font" has existed for hundreds 
> :> of years, and abuse by one company can't change it.
> :Everything Brett has said so far is confirmed by The Chicago Manual of
> :Style.  Just a note.
> My grandfather is a printer.  Has a Heidelberg in his garage.  I don't
> need to steenkin' Chicago Manual of Style to confirm what Brett's saying.
> When he talks about a font, he's talking about something specific like
> Helvetica 12pt. medium.

So what did he call a collection of programs that are used to render a
typeface? *That's* the question at hand. 

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 [...].

	A font is a computer file or program used to represent or
	create the typeface.

That's fairly close to how Brett defined fonts (a definition I agree
with): a font is a rendering of a typeface. The FAQ is specific to
fonts on the computer, and basically defines a font as a rendering of
a typeface as a computer file or program.

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. 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.  They still come in
a specific weight (ok, I'm ignoring multiple master fonts) from a
specific foundry designed to be set with a specific kind of
program. Adobe Garamond rendered in PostScript is clearly the same
typeface as Adobe Garamond rendered in TrueType - and equally clearly
the two are *not* the same thing. As such, "scalable font" is a
perfectly reasonable name for the things.

Yes, the common habit of dropping the adjective "scalable" breaks the
idea that fonts are a specific size. There are *lots* of examples of
things that are available with a technological twist that started life
with an adjective that was later dropped, in the process breaking an
assumption that some property was fundamental to the thing in
question. Dropping "digital" breaks the assumption that watches have
hands. Dropping "night" breaks the assumption that ball games are
played during the day. And so on.

The same can be said about "scalable typefaces" - dropping the
adjective just breaks the assumption that different renderings of the
same typeface are still examples of that typeface. I think that's a
more fundamental assumption. Further, this adjective begs the question
- why are the non-scalable versions of these things called "fonts"
instead of typefaces?

With all deference due to the old practitioners of the field, I think
the font foundry that created the name "scalable fonts" chose the
write noun to provide with a new adjective.

	<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?15070.37699.876831.515060>