David W. Fenton wrote:
On 23 Oct 2006 at 15:26, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
[just a request: can you *please* put a blank line after the quote
and before your reply? When you don't, my email client can't properly
tell where the quotes end and the new text begins, and I end up
having to completely rewrap everything; it's also harder to read!]
I put em in (sometimes double or triple), and the email client stripe em
out. I haven't figured out just how to stop it yet.
Well, it's not relevant with typewriters until the 1970s, because
before that point all typewriters were fixed-pitch, so there was not
any possibility of proportionally-spaced numbers.
but except for the possible case of "1", digits in fonts of typefaces
were the same width, and I'm not at all sure of the case with the "1".
My main points are that, based upon an examination of reference materials,
1) that text fonts were smaller (that is, contained a significantly
smaller number of characters in the font--even adding diacriticals and
other items needed for non-English usage would only add a dozen or so
character) than the 256 characters you suggest; and
2) that in most typefaces, the number characters in the fonts (with the
possible exception of the "1") appear to have had fixed, rather than
proportional, widths.
I am not prepared to deny that there may have been typefaces in which
the fonts contained proportional width numerals, though these do not
appear to have been standard, nor that proportional width numerals may
have been available for most typefaces, though if they were available, I
suspect the proportional width types were the add ons, not the fixed
width ones.
ns
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
