Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

On 2011/11/10 10:59, 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?

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.

Regards,   Martin.