Print

Print


On Nov 27, 2006, at 4:23 AM, Will Robertson wrote:

> This is a good taxonomy, but I'm not convinced (any more) that a  
> fixed scheme is necessary these days. Take fontspec, for example --  
> it's certainly not perfect, but what features does it lack by not  
> having a rigid structure for font definitions?

Thanks!

The big gain, I think, would be the ability to set up doing  
contextual shifts in weight or width once (as part of the selection  
scheme) and then have it ``just work''.

Similarly, wouldn't having something more formal up-front make for  
better document portability, or at least make it easier to re-work a  
document from using one font to another?

William

-- 
William Adams
senior graphic designer
Fry Communications



This email message and any files transmitted with it contain information
which is confidential and intended only for the addressee(s). If you are
not the intended recipient(s), any usage,  dissemination, disclosure, or
action taken in  reliance on it is prohibited.  The reliability of  this
method of communication cannot be guaranteed.  Email can be intercepted,
corrupted, delayed, incompletely transmitted, virus-laden,  or otherwise
affected during transmission. Reasonable steps have been taken to reduce
the risk of viruses, but we cannot accept liability for damage sustained
as a result of this message. If you have received this message in error,
please immediately delete it and all copies of it and notify the sender.