Jungshik Shin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Thomas Chan wrote:
> > Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote:
> > > people are working on this field. We don't have Japanese fonts
> > > with bold, italic, and so on. And more, we don't have Japanese fonts
> > > for good number of sizes. We also don't have scalable font.
> >
> > What exactly would you need bold and/or italic versions of in a
> > "Japanese font"? Perhaps Latin and Cyrillic, but what else?
> > Surely you are not saying that you need bold and italic versions of
> > kanji and kana.
>
> I understand your positon on 'italic' Japanese font but why not
> 'bold'? Actually, X-TT (ttf rendering engine included in XF86 4.0.x)
> makes it possible to produce arbitrary combination of 'italic', 'bold'
> etc from a single ttf by editing fonts.dir file.
I suppose if "bold" is interpreted as a heavier weight, then it would
be okay, but it is not the same as how bolding works for Latin, et al
script--not all strokes increase in thickness by the same amount.
See for example fig 6-1 on p. 271 and table 6-27 on p. 303 of Ken
Lunde's 1999 book.
Some people might want also to have multiple levels of weight
represented as different fonts, rather than a binary distinction of
"boldness". Doesn't one of the config files included with X-TT
treat some Japanese fonts (by DynaLab) in various weights as
different fonts--e.g., W3, W5, W7, etc?
(I'm not sure if weight or boldness matters for tiny bitmap fonts,
anyway. Also, existing bitmap CJK fonts vary in this aspect--
the Japanese .bdf fonts I've seen seem a lot "bolder" than some
Chinese ones.)
Actually, there is "bold" and "italic" (actually, "oblique", if you
want to make that distinction) in CJK, but it seems to be the
result of people using algorithmically-generated versions
(intended for non-CJK text) in word processors.
Thomas Chan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
