Re: Reference Manual Project

[Henning Hraban Ramm <hraban@fiee.net>]

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
___________________________________________________________________________________