Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

[Tony Hansen <[e-mail]>]

By the definitions of that article and other things I've read, what's 
being proposed to be included as sub-types of the new font/* are neither 
fonts nor typefaces. Instead they are font description language file 
formats.

     Tony Hansen
     [e-mail]

On 11/9/2011 8:59 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>> http://fontfeed.com/archives/font-or-typeface/ explains that in very 
>> simple
>> terms. As far as the analogy there with MP3<=>font, song<=>typeface 
>> goes, we
>> definitely need Mime types for fonts, not for typefaces.
>
>
> Forgive me for feeling the need to be entirely pedantic here, but the 
> article went just shy of being completely clear (for me) and I think 
> it is indeed worth having us all not merely on the same page, but the 
> same place on the page...
>
> Is this correct:
>
>    Typeface:  times roman
>
>    Font:      times roman, 12pt
>
>    Font:      times roman, 10pt
>
>    Font:      times roman, 10pt, italic
>
>    Font:      times roman, 10pt, bold
>
> Yes?
>
> That is, typeface is the basic design (or abstraction) while typeface 
> + physical details (such as specific size) is a font?
>
> Tnx.
>
> d/
>