Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.94972324@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:11 +0100 Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.94972324" 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: re: fontdef issues Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 21:18:00 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Don Hosek" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 523 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.94972324 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -On another point, I looked at the point sizes offered as "standard -options" in some Postscript based systems: they are a truly bizarre -collection of sizes, much like that quoted by Don H (from memory). -If that is standard typesetting practice in some cultures, then I pity -the poor designers who have to work under such constraints. Surely we -can offer tham something better. My sources "in the trade" dont -think that there is any such thing as standard sizes, -"different fonts look good in different sizes, and one printer's -`Monotype Times at 10pt' is sufficiently different in size to the -same font from another printer for such an idea to be unrealistic". -A case of "suck it and see". -I have probably muddied the waters enough now, I should stop. Perhaps a bit of explication on my set of sizes that I gave: Back in the days of lead type (not that those days aren't still around) when each size was designed, there was a standard series of type sizes in use. Sizes 12pt and below were used for text (sometimes 14pt in children's books) and 14pt and above were for display text (although technical books and anyplace where space is a premium might have displayed text as small as 12pt). The main reason for settling on a standard series was, since the fonts of a same typesize all had the same body height, they could be used together with a modicum (but not much more) of consistency. (There still was no real conception of two ten point times looking like one another so the typographer's observation above is actually on a completely different issue.) The main point of all this being that designers tend to, more by tradition than anything else, to specify type in the sizes I listed (or some super- or subset that's reasonably close). An investigation of bitmapped fonts will require similar consistency to those numbers. TeX's magsteps are an attempt at rationalizing the sequence, but it has never really caught on and I'm inclined to claim that it never should. There's not much of a compelling reason to use the same bitmap for display at one magnification and text at another. -dh ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.94972324 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: re: fontdef issues

-On another point, I looked at the point sizes offered = as "standard
-options" in some Postscript based systems: they = are a truly bizarre
-collection of sizes, much like that quoted by Don H = (from memory).
-If that is standard typesetting practice in some = cultures, then I pity
-the poor designers who have to work under such = constraints.  Surely we
-can offer tham something better.   My = sources "in the trade" dont
-think that there is any such thing as standard = sizes,

-"different fonts look good in different sizes, = and one printer's
-`Monotype Times at  10pt' is sufficiently = different in size to the
-same font from another  printer for such an = idea to be unrealistic".
-A case of "suck it and  see".

-I have probably muddied the waters enough now, I = should stop.

Perhaps a bit of explication on my set of sizes that I = gave: Back
in the days of lead type (not that those days aren't = still
around) when each size was designed, there was a = standard series
of type sizes in use. Sizes 12pt and below were used = for text
(sometimes 14pt in children's books) and 14pt and = above were for
display text (although technical books and anyplace = where space
is a premium might have displayed text as small as = 12pt). The
main reason for settling on a standard series was, = since the
fonts of a same typesize all had the same body = height, they could
be used together with a modicum (but not much more) = of
consistency. (There still was no real conception of = two ten point
times looking like one another so the typographer's = observation
above is actually on a completely different = issue.)

The main point of all this being that designers tend = to, more by
tradition than anything else, to specify type in the = sizes I
listed (or some super- or subset that's reasonably = close). An
investigation of bitmapped fonts will require similar = consistency
to those numbers. TeX's magsteps are an attempt at = rationalizing
the sequence, but it has never really caught on and = I'm inclined
to claim that it never should. There's not much of a = compelling
reason to use the same bitmap for display at one = magnification
and text at another.

-dh

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.94972324--