From: Adam Twardoch (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Nov 27 2008 - 09:38:14 CST
Peter Zilahy Ingerman, PhD wrote:
> Agreed. After all, in the days when my father hand-set type, 72 points
> was 0.9958 inches ... and, thanks to computers, it's now 1.0000 inches
> because it's more convenient. Pfui!
Of course, and it was useful because there was new media and a fully
With "kerning", there already is an existing concept of kerning for
digital fonts, and it does not include anchor-based positioning.
Philippe is proposing an extension of the term but this has the
potential of confusion because the same term can mean two different
things in the _same_ medium.
When your father hand-set type 72 points was 0.9958 inches in the U.S.
and 1,0657 inches in Europe, and this is why the points were called
"Pica points" in the U.S. and "Didot points" in Europe for clarification.
If Philippe wants to add some clarifying adjective to his use of the
term "kerning" (e.g. Philippean kerning), no objection to that. But I'd
rather he did not hijack the general term for his own definition.
-- Adam Twardoch | Language Typography Unicode Fonts OpenType | twardoch.com | silesian.com | fontlab.net I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. (Hunter S. Thompson)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 27 2008 - 09:42:08 CST