Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:32:21 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> 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) Message-ID: <15071.4885.960509.549593@guru.mired.org> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15071.4885.960509.549593>