- From: marbux <marbux@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:53:13 -0800
- To: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org>
- Cc: Ambrose Li <ambrose.li@gmail.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Max Harmony <maxh@sdf.lonestar.org>, www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org> wrote: > And no, I'm not going to ask for > "fount" as a synonym for "font", so you needn't > think that this is just the thin end of the wedge :-) Thanks. There's been enough violence done already to the historical meaning of "font." In the computer era, it's acquired the meaning of "type face." But it was actually a unit of measurement, a useful *quantity* of different characters, sorts, etc. of a given type face. So one shop might order 50 fonts of the same typeface because they needed more than 1 font to set type for, e.g., a book. Many shops I worked in had more than a single font of a given type face that saw heavy usage. When I was a International Typographical Union apprentice back in the early 60s, the first time I referred to a type face as a "font" in conversation, I got a royal shellacking from a journeyman and an instruction to look up the word in Webster's Unabridged. It was a memorable event, never forgotten. I still cringe every time I see someone referring to a type face as a "font." Unfortunately, it happens a lot. The word has acquired a new and quite different meaning and I don't think there's any going back. Best regards, Paul -- Universal Interoperability Council <http:www.universal-interop-council.org>
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 15:53:48 UTC