Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:32:34 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id kARCWOtX025764 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:32:25 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id kARCQLwo019809; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:26:21 +0100 (MET) Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id kAQN20e7000448; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:26:00 +0100 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.3) with spool id 1290688 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:26:00 +0100 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id kARCQ0Lk013037 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:26:00 +0100 Received: from hygeia.frycomm.com (hygeia.frycomm.com [65.167.125.6]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id kARCPjwo019613 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:25:48 +0100 (MET) Received: from [192.168.21.139] (charon.frycomm.com [65.167.125.1]) by hygeia.frycomm.com (Switch-3.2.0/Switch-3.2.0) with ESMTP id kARCPfQR026434 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:25:41 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) References: <0A807AAD-06E1-47CA-BB88-619F7452D75B@frycomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Message-ID: <377EC06F-F6B8-4427-B49E-7D399388B5C3@frycomm.com> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:25:39 -0500 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: William Adams Subject: Re: The Next Font Selection Scheme To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE In-Reply-To: Precedence: list X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: -2.274 () AWL,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 12:32:35.0710 (UTC) FILETIME=[1E2149E0:01C71220] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4994 On Nov 27, 2006, at 4:23 AM, Will Robertson wrote: > 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? Thanks! The big gain, I think, would be the ability to set up doing contextual shifts in weight or width once (as part of the selection scheme) and then have it ``just work''. Similarly, wouldn't having something more formal up-front make for better document portability, or at least make it easier to re-work a document from using one font to another? William -- William Adams senior graphic designer Fry Communications This email message and any files transmitted with it contain information which is confidential and intended only for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), any usage, dissemination, disclosure, or action taken in reliance on it is prohibited. The reliability of this method of communication cannot be guaranteed. Email can be intercepted, corrupted, delayed, incompletely transmitted, virus-laden, or otherwise affected during transmission. Reasonable steps have been taken to reduce the risk of viruses, but we cannot accept liability for damage sustained as a result of this message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it and notify the sender.