Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Thu, 10 November 2011 05:07 UTC

Return-Path: <tony@att.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF4CC11E8088 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 21:07:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_BACKHAIR_34=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2YSUPlx9iLNL for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 21:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA73511E8073 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 21:07:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1320901627!48667081!1
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145]
X-StarScan-Version: 6.3.6; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 5996 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2011 05:07:07 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-13.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 10 Nov 2011 05:07:07 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAA57YKF028827 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:07:34 -0500
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAA57S60028736 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:07:28 -0500
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAA570Vl006042 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:07:00 -0500
Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAA56vaq005887 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:06:58 -0500
Received: from [135.70.143.111] (vpn-135-70-143-111.vpn.mwst.att.com[135.70.143.111]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20111110050604gw100e4l2me> (Authid: tony); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 05:06:05 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.143.111]
Message-ID: <4EBB5BF0.1080503@att.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:06:56 -0500
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org Discuss" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <4EB86078.8070904@stpeter.im> <BDC0F178EEB88CC4B3D24020@PST.JCK.COM> <4EB8D0F4.9020907@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <555BA718-A5FA-4111-9A8B-1DE99921CCE2@standardstrack.com> <60D34A5D-985C-4C97-A4FA-3CBF5CD31FCF@mnot.net> <4EB9D49C.5010100@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4EBB2FEA.5060602@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4EBB2FEA.5060602@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] font/*
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 05:07:12 -0000

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
     tony@att.com

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/
>