Hi all,
Henning Hraban Ramm wrote:
> Am 2008-08-10 um 16:24 schrieb Taco Hoekwater:
>
>> http://context.aanhet.net/svn/contextman/context-reference/en/co-typography.pdf
There is a new version now, same location. Response to other messages:
* The two identical paragraphs in the "hz" section were an error in the
source, now they really are different.
* "handlings" is weird, I know. The problem is that I am not a native
English speaker and I can't seem to come up with a reasonable
(short!) wording for "the collection of named computing objects that
alter the font handling".
>> As this is a first attempt, corrections and suggestions are very
>> welcome. The next goal will be the creation of a chapter that deals
>> with font installation and definitions.
>
> Thank you! I learned something new.
> But I'd also like to suggest a few changes:
> Table 1.1 is not clear to me:
I tried to make this more clear by altering both text and table a little.
> Perhaps explain that "pt" means "point" and is 1/72 inch.
Ok, did that.
> In 1.2 etc. perhaps use italics instead of slanted as example -
> typographically "slanted" is a monstrosity.
Did that too.
> 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.
> 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).
> - ... 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.
> 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 ...
> Sorry, I didn't read the whole thing, no time.
Thanks for your comments,
Taco
___________________________________________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________________________________________
