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....
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