Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Thomas Phinney

About

Username
Thomas Phinney
Joined
Visits
882
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
526
Invited by
Admin James Puckett
Posts
704
  • Re: Naming font modifications

    @Simon Cozens I think the problem with your proposal is that everyone would be independently renaming their old and/or new version of the same fonts, so the multiplicity of names would be large. With this independent renaming, you will certainly end up with cases of both (1) same font but different names and (2) different fonts but same name.

    So, I don’t like that part of your proposal. I do like the idea of a font installer that is smart enough to advise which is likely the better/newer version of a font, including version string info among its algorithms and info, but not relying solely on that.
  • Re: "Expert" fonts

    With regards to (2), that's easily done with Python scripting in FontLab—or any of the major font editing apps.
  • Re: Units per em

    It originally had a larger UPM, I think 1000, and set much smaller, in OS X 10.0.

    It has been sized relative to the caps, including swashy ones, and thus had a tiny x-height compared to other fonts at a given point size. I guess this confused some people, or at least seemed counter-intuitive.

    So Apple decided to resize the font (by making it 2.5x as large). I think the change was in OS X 10.2, IIRC. The easiest way to do this was to leave everything else the same, not touch anything else in the font or a single glyph, but to change the UPM value. A very simple adjustment from a technical standpoint—even an elegant way to make the change.
  • Re: Units per em

    Unless you have a good reason to not use 1000, use 1000, since some software still assumes it.

    The assumption is that fonts with PostScript outlines (Type 1 or OpenType CFF/.otf) will have a 1000-unit em, and fonts with TrueType outlines, a 2048-unit em. What is considered “standard” is dependent on the outline format.
  • Re: 656565656

    (a)