Received: from webgate.proteosys.de (mail.proteosys-ag.com [62.225.9.49]) by lucy.proteosys (8.11.0/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id f1ED5jH31793 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:05:45 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1ED5id06180 . for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:05:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailserver1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.30]) by mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1ED5i706361 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:05:44 +0100 (MET) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C09686.D766DA80" Received: from mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.56]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01875 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:05:43 +0100 (MET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (mail.listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.5]) by mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1ED5gM22791 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:05:43 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by mail.listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <12.A9FA093B@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:05:35 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 488479 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:05:38 +0100 Received: from ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (mail.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.234]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA20835 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:05:37 +0100 (MET) Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA44680 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:05:36 +0100 Received: from Sina.sharif.ac.ir (sina.Sharif.AC.IR [194.225.40.9]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1ED5Ux07506 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:05:31 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (roozbeh@localhost) by Sina.sharif.ac.ir (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14767 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:49:46 +0330 In-Reply-To: Return-Path: X-Sender: roozbeh@Sina.sharif.ac.ir x-mime-autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de id OAA20836 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: insufficent NFSS model (?) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:19:46 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Roozbeh Pournader" Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" To: "Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L" Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3921 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09686.D766DA80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Lars Hellstr=F6m wrote: > But that's not the NFSS, is it? The NFSS is the classification and > selection of fonts using the encoding/family/series/shape/size model, > \rmfamily and friends belong to a higher level of font selection. = (I've > called it the "author level" in some previous mail long ago.) That's not NFSS, I know. I only wanted to say that there are differences with the font model (between what I've seen and read in the TeX world, = and what happens here). I do not know exactly about the situation in Latin typographic world. > This could use some clarification. Is iranic like the latin italic but > leaning the other way (negative italic slant)? (Please confirm or = correct.) "real iranic" (that's really what designers say when they're talking) is somehow like the latin italics, but leaning to left. "iranic" is like latin slanted, but leaning to left. > Could one say that cmff is an iranic font? No, iranic is only used for the Arabic script. Something like cmff will be called backslanted. > As for being distinct families, > how are the iranic/italic fonts used? For emphasizing, like italic, or = for > what? They are used for emphasis, yes. > NFSS classifies outline as a shape, and thus shaded-outline should be = a > shape as well. I know. I wanted to tell that it is not considered a shape here, because people use it the same way they use boldface. They may ask for an "Azin/outline/slanted/14", and will never ask for a "Azin/bold/outline/14". --roozbeh ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09686.D766DA80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: insufficent NFSS model (?)

On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Lars Hellstr=F6m wrote:

> But that's not the NFSS, is it? The NFSS is the = classification and
> selection of fonts using the = encoding/family/series/shape/size model,
> \rmfamily and friends belong to a higher level = of font selection. (I've
> called it the "author level" in some = previous mail long ago.)

That's not NFSS, I know. I only wanted to say that = there are differences
with the font model (between what I've seen and read = in the TeX world, and
what happens here). I do not know exactly about the = situation in Latin
typographic world.

> This could use some clarification. Is iranic like = the latin italic but
> leaning the other way (negative italic slant)? = (Please confirm or correct.)

"real iranic" (that's really what designers = say when they're talking) is
somehow like the latin italics, but leaning to left. = "iranic" is like
latin slanted, but leaning to left.

> Could one say that cmff is an iranic font?

No, iranic is only used for the Arabic script. = Something like cmff
will be called backslanted.

> As for being distinct families,
> how are the iranic/italic fonts used? For = emphasizing, like italic, or for
> what?

They are used for emphasis, yes.

> NFSS classifies outline as a shape, and thus = shaded-outline should be a
> shape as well.

I know. I wanted to tell that it is not considered a = shape here, because
people use it the same way they use boldface. They = may ask for an
"Azin/outline/slanted/14", and will never = ask for a
"Azin/bold/outline/14".

--roozbeh

------_=_NextPart_001_01C09686.D766DA80--