Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
References: <0A807AAD-06E1-47CA-BB88-619F7452D75B@frycomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MomentumInternet-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more
                         information
X-MomentumInternet-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MomentumInternet-MailScanner-From: will@guerilla.net.au
Message-ID:  <E081489C-5183-48A4-945B-C0B932E907CD@guerilla.net.au>
Date:         Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:53:21 +1030
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Will Robertson <will@GUERILLA.NET.AU>
Subject: Re: The Next Font Selection Scheme
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <0A807AAD-06E1-47CA-BB88-619F7452D75B@frycomm.com>
Precedence: list
X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: -2.599 () BAYES_00
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 213.139.130.197
Return-Path: owner-latex-l@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Nov 2006 09:30:39.0240 (UTC) FILETIME=[B3682880:01C71206]
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 4993

On 27/11/2006, at 11:26 , William Adams wrote:

> Posted this to comp.text.tex, but no response there, so here 'tis in
> case anyone wants to discuss it.
>
> I wrote up something on this a long while ago, but it seems to've been
> lost.

Indeed, I remember trying to find something like this that you  
referred to once :)

> Here's a quick recap as a starting point for discussion:
> I think that covers most options / possibilities. Most of the weird
> variations get folded into family (so one could have
> Thames-Calligraphic Engraved).

This is a good taxonomy, but I'm not convinced (any more) that a  
fixed scheme is necessary these days. Take fontspec, for example --  
it's certainly not perfect, but what features does it lack by not  
having a rigid structure for font definitions?

Will