On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
You mix "fonts" and "font shapes".
It seems a very common misconception. Too many people use the word 'font' when they refer to 'typeface.' A 'font' is a particular typeface (Palatino, Amerigo, Bookman), shape (Roman, Slant, Italic), weight (normal, bold, thin), and size (10pt, 11pt, 12pt). That's why you'll see so many entries in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/ with the same family name. In the days when all printed documents were hand-set with metal type, typesetters had many large wooden trays, each with numerous small compartments (one for each character in that font set). Each tray contained a single font. Now, with computers doing all the work, we've lost sight of the distinctions in terms, call everything a 'font,' and end up miscommunicating. In most documents, only two typefaces are used: a serif typeface as the body text and a san-serif typeface as the headline (part, chapter, section, etc.) text. Within the body text, emphasis is usually by changing the shape to Italic or slant (if the former is not available). Bold and underline are not used. (Take a look at a newspaper, book, or magazine and see if you can find bold or underlined text used.) Underlined text is a hold-over from typewriter days, and I suspect (but do not know) that bold is the creation of the earlier word processors (e.g., Wang and those on monochrome-monitored PCs) that could not display Italic fonts. Current word processors (Wurd, OO.o., AbiWord) continue to provide these typographic oddities, and writers continue to use them. If we all use typographic terms with precision we'll communicate much more clearly and effectively. Your local curmudgeon, Rich -- Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. | Integrity Credibility Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. | Innovation <http://www.appl-ecosys.com> Voice: 503-667-4517 Fax: 503-667-8863
