Am 2008-08-11 um 13:08 schrieb Taco Hoekwater: >> Table 1.1 is not clear to me: > > I tried to make this more clear by altering both text and table a > little.
Thanks, *much* better! > >> Perhaps explain that "pt" means "point" and is 1/72 inch. > Ok, did that. And I guess Martin is right WRT pt vs. bp >> In 1.2 etc. perhaps use italics instead of slanted as example - >> typographically "slanted" is a monstrosity. > Did that too. Thank you! >> Your (or ConTeXt's) definition of typographical terms is a bit >> unusual: >> usual(?) vs. ConTeXt >> clan(?) family >> family style(s) >> face alternative > > Unusual, yes. But hard to alter, because this is the terminology that > context has used for over a decade now. The current english names are > about what you get if you translate the correct dutch typographical > terms into english literally, btw. ok; of course stay with ConTeXt's terminology, but perhaps explain that to those who know other terms. > >> i.e. >> - Computer Modern is a "font clan" (in German: Schriftsippe), some >> fonts of different styles that are designed to work together > > I've seen "super family" and "collection", but this is the first time > ever I heard the word "font clan" (I knew about Schriftsippe). ...if you translate the correct german term into englishh literally... ;-) That's why I used quotes. >> - ... bold is a font face (in German: Schriftschnitt ("cut")), or >> just >> a font (file) > > This one is pretty harmless, in my opinion. "alternative" is not > actually confusing, just a little abnormal/ > > I could use "font class" instead of "typeface" in the manual, that > would help alleviate at least one source of confusion and because > the use of 'typeface' in context is fairly new, it should be ok. > It makes the \definetypeface macro name appear at bit funny, but > that is not a big deal (there are more funny macro names, anyway). > > The big problem is family vs. style, and I do not dare to change it: > that would render all already released font documentation useless. see above: any terminology is good, if it is consistent and well defined/explained. >> Perhaps you could *all* font switches in one table, maybe as an >> appendix. > > Commands like \ss, \bf \ssbf etc. you mean? that list is open- > ended ... You're right. I meant something like in http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Basic_Text_Formatting but perhaps that belongs in some other manual. BTW in LilyPond there's a multilingual glossary, perhaps we should start such, too? We often get confusion with technical terms. And at least in German there's currently not even a technical dictionary for the print/design industries. Greetlings from Lake Constance! Hraban --- http://www.fiee.net/texnique/ http://wiki.contextgarden.net https://www.cacert.org (I'm an assurer) ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________