Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

On 11/10/2011 12:20 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>>
>> That is, typeface is the basic design (or abstraction) while typeface +
>> physical details (such as specific size) is a font?
>
> Not exactly. On the one hand, the italic version of times roman actually is a
> design by itself, so it can very well be seen as a typeface.
>
> On the other hand, specific size was important for lead type (which doesn't
> scale) and bitmap font formats. With today's outline and hinting technologies,
> most fonts are designed to work at many different sizes, so the specific size is
> rather irrelevant.
>
> Anyway, what we are looking at is to have media types for font formats. Typeface
> affects this only marginally.


Well, I think I tracked your response and I think it made sense to me, including 
the wrinkle added to the historical perspective by the 'outline' model(s).

The problem is that where it landed leaves me still unclear about the exact 
difference between face and font, and it seems that it would be useful for 
font/face non-geeks, like me, to be able to use the terms properly.


mumble.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net