It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
You better fake the weights values below 250.
...what is the difference between a font with zero stroke width and one with zero strokes.
I've encountered horizontal font smearing of less than 250 ("reported") weights in several MS software. You better fake the weights values below 250.
This was not a spec failure, but an implementation failure by many developers, including MS Office, who often simply assumed that there were only normal and bold fonts and wrote code that made that assumption.
Years ago, when Ernie tested this issue at Adobe (at my urging), we found that about half of all Windows apps we checked made the relevant poor assumptions. Adobe considered that releasing fonts that smeared bold in half of all Windows apps was unacceptable.
> It’s not your font Microsoft lets incompetents design and code software. If users complain tell them whose fault the bug is.
Yes, how dare they let arbitrary third parties develop software!
Remember, it is not only Microsoft apps that did/do this, and it was not the OS's fault as far as I could ever tell. Rather it was the fault of assuming the base member in a style-linked family would have a weight of 400, and asking the OS for a "regular" weight font for the base member. The OS would then synthesize such a font if it could not find one. (weightclass < 250, then faux bold by adding 300 would be closer to the "desired" weight, hence it should do a fake bold. Ugh.)
This Typophile thread came up with a maximum of 15 weights in a typeface family:
Equally problematic is the particular distribution of those possibilities. For example, typefaces today often have a number of lighter-than-regular weights. If one keeps with the specs and restricts to single digits, there can be at most three such. Similarly, at most two weights heavier than bold.
I know this link isn't about size, or even weight. Yet, if one looks at the heaviest stroke of the heaviest biáng in the six-biáng range Adobe is so kindly illustrating, that's 500-600 by my noodle weight reckoning. What that means is although biáng might stop gaining weight 1/2 way through the scale†, the rest of Chinese needs a lot more than 5 weights to reach Black in a 1-stroke Chinese glyph, much less including what I discuss in †. So 1,000 discrete values are only just enough for all weights of all glyphs, imho, and I'd like more.
The impact of this OS/2-not-enough-wt-thing, and it's relationship(s) to the OS/2 not-enough about size-thing, globally, imho is barely inadequate for a Latin standard, and as one gets into the depths of kanji canyon, well, knowing there is still a river running at the bottom, cutting ever deeper into the glyph repertoire served by this standard, doesn't help lend a positive view to anything less than a global solution asap, as that inadequacy globalizes.*
*Or not. maybe there should be two or five 'standards' for glyph, style, family, size, and etc.
† which of course it would not have to, if it was 80 feet tall, for your 30 foot away amusement, and those little white spaces would like to range from the size of a cherry pit to the pinky of a spider, taking OS/2 well past 'Eleven'.
This begs the question: what is the difference between a font with zero stroke width and one with zero strokes.