Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.8F3DDF24@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:03 +0100 Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.8F3DDF24" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: re: fontdef issues Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1992 23:55:30 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "bbeeton" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 476 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.8F3DDF24 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable while i agree in general terms with what's been said about the absurdity of calling a font with design size of 17.28pt a 17pt font, i would remind you all that one of the more important reasons for magsteps is to permit documents to be printed out at a larger size than the size at which they were tex'ed. this feature has been supported in at least some "past" dvi drivers, although i haven't kept up with the current realities. another important use of magnified fonts is in making slides. the proper fonts to use for this purpose are ones with a smaller design size, optically enlarged =3D "magnified", rather than fonts designed to the larger size. i'm not saying that the enlargements should necessarily progress in steps of 1.2, but that is a relatively efficient way to do it. i think i needn't belabor the point that when these two applications are added to that of printing out documents with fonts at the design size, the required bitmap font libraries can be much smaller than they would be otherwise. re what exactly *is* a 10pt font, that decision is entirely up to the font designer. as don hosek has pointed out, helvetica has a much more generous x-height than does times, and correspondingly smaller ascenders and descenders. this was intentional! and what don has done by scaling helvetica so that the x-height is closer to that of times has introduced other anomalies that a skilled typographer would not appreciate. it is worth noting, i think, that new fonts designed particularly for laser printer use have tended to adopt the "family" approach of computer modern (cf. stone, for example). this whole discussion started with frank's observation that cmr17 is actually designed for 17.28pt. i'm sure the reason is so that it will be compatible with cmr10 fonts scaled to magstep3. examination of the parameter values in cmr10.mf and of the printed images of cmr10 scaled \magstep3 alongside of cmr17 is quite instructive. this is the kind of subtlety that hasn't yet been accommodated by most "modern" font technologies. (i will readily admit my bias for "designed" fonts, as opposed to the ubiquitous optical scaling now foisted upon the dtp public.) the bottom line is that there are still reasons to use magstepped fonts. i'm just asking for careful consideration of the effect of abandoning magsteps before making a decision. -- bb ------- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.8F3DDF24 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable re: fontdef issues

while i agree in general terms with what's been said = about the
absurdity of calling a font with design size of = 17.28pt a 17pt font,
i would remind you all that one of the more important = reasons for
magsteps is to permit documents to be printed out at = a larger size
than the size at which they were tex'ed.  this = feature has been
supported in at least some "past" dvi = drivers, although i haven't
kept up with the current realities.

another important use of magnified fonts is in making = slides.  the
proper fonts to use for this purpose are ones with a = smaller design
size, optically enlarged =3D "magnified", = rather than fonts designed to
the larger size.  i'm not saying that the = enlargements should
necessarily progress in steps of 1.2, but that is a = relatively
efficient way to do it.

i think i needn't belabor the point that when these = two applications
are added to that of printing out documents with = fonts at the design
size, the required bitmap font libraries can be much = smaller than they
would be otherwise.

re what exactly *is* a 10pt font, that decision is = entirely up to the
font designer.  as don hosek has pointed out, = helvetica has a much
more generous x-height than does times, and = correspondingly smaller
ascenders and descenders.  this was = intentional!  and what don has
done by scaling helvetica so that the x-height is = closer to that of
times has introduced other anomalies that a skilled = typographer would
not appreciate.  it is worth noting, i think, = that new fonts designed
particularly for laser printer use have tended to = adopt the "family"
approach of computer modern (cf. stone, for = example).

this whole discussion started with frank's observation = that cmr17 is
actually designed for 17.28pt.  i'm sure the = reason is so that it will
be compatible with cmr10 fonts scaled to = magstep3.  examination of the
parameter values in cmr10.mf and of the printed = images of cmr10 scaled
\magstep3 alongside of cmr17 is quite = instructive.  this is the kind
of subtlety that hasn't yet been accommodated by most = "modern" font
technologies.  (i will readily admit my bias for = "designed" fonts, as
opposed to the ubiquitous optical scaling now foisted = upon the dtp
public.)

the bottom line is that there are still reasons to use = magstepped
fonts.  i'm just asking for careful = consideration of the effect of
abandoning magsteps before making a decision.
        =         =         =         =         =         -- bb
-------

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.8F3DDF24--