From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Thai Chicken From: rog@vitanuova.com In-Reply-To: <20040225112245.0739a51b.martin@parvat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:53:59 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: f55fa0e4-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > Please, I'm not trying to make a row. I simply don't understand why this seemingly > obvious solution, apparently has problems I don't understand! Or is the 'problem' > simply that "no-one has got around to doing it yet" - which is fine!) one "obvious" reason why this is a problem is that fonts don't necessarily come in all sizes. there's no point in my tiny 7 point font dragging in chinese chars from a much larger font - either they'll be truncated, or the tiny font will have a much larger height than it should. i guess that's an argument for on-demand rendering of scalable fonts, but that's not a trivial problem, as chris found out... i have to say i'd like to see a more standard convention for naming fonts; i very rarely use other than the standard acme or rio fonts, (although i'd sometimes like to) and the fact that fonts have no consistent naming scheme doesn't really help. just the act of grouping a load of consistent fonts in one place, as chris did for charon, helps a lot: charon/(bold cw italic plain).(tiny small normal large vlarge).font at least then i can remember where to find typefaces that more-or-less go with one another, and have as large a coverage as is possible, consistent with the font appearance.