drraymond@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Darrell Raymond) (05/01/91)
Someone recently asked me what the difference between a font and a face was. I gave the following definitions: family - a class of letterforms (e.g., Helvetica) face - a particular style of a family (e.g., Helvetica Oblique) font - a face at a particular point size (e.g., Helvetica Oblique 10) I see in this month's Byte that Jerry Pournelle (not the world's leading expert in typesetting terminology) uses the word "typeface" where I use the word "family", but keeps the other two terms the same (he also gives the impression that there is such a thing as "Times Roman Italic", which seems oxymoronic). Would anyone care to either confirm my definitions or point out other definitions?
eijkhout@s41.csrd.uiuc.edu (Victor Eijkhout) (05/02/91)
drraymond@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Darrell Raymond) writes: > Someone recently asked me what the difference between a font and a >face was. I gave the following definitions: > family - a class of letterforms (e.g., Helvetica) > face - a particular style of a family (e.g., Helvetica Oblique) > font - a face at a particular point size (e.g., Helvetica Oblique 10) > Would anyone care to either confirm my definitions or point out >other definitions? Your terms are a bit too concise, but basically correct. My inspiration for terminology is the following article: Richard Southall, Designing a new typeface with Metafont, in: \TeX\ for scientific documentation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science~236, Springer Verlag, 1984. and Richard Southall definitely *is* an authority on typography. Short summary: typeface: set of lettershapes (e.g., Palatino Bold) family of typefaces: set of typefaces that belong together (Palatino) font: one typeface in one specific size, and (important!) for some specific machine (Palatino Bold on a 300dpi Postscript engine). Victor.
graham@june.cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) (05/02/91)
In article <1991May1.172153.6437@csrd.uiuc.edu> eijkhout@s41.csrd.uiuc.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes: >drraymond@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Darrell Raymond) writes: > >> Someone recently asked me what the difference between a font and a >>face was. I gave the following definitions: [original definitions deleted] > [Richard Southall's definitions] >Short summary: >typeface: set of lettershapes (e.g., Palatino Bold) >family of typefaces: set of typefaces that belong together (Palatino) >font: one typeface in one specific size, and (important!) > for some specific machine (Palatino Bold on a 300dpi Postscript engine). > The definition of font in this case is too restrictive. Perhaps it would be better to say that a font is: one typeface in a specific size and for some specific page description program (e.g., Palatino Bold implemented in PostScript). However, this runs into problems since PostScript (and other outline) fonts do not specify a particular type size. In this case, the only time you could refer to a type font is between the printer's raster device and the page. At all other times, you simply have a typeface. Therefore, the term font is correctly used for computer generated type when applied to a typeface implemented using bitmaps. -- Stephen Graham graham@cs.washington.edu (206) 543-8115
eijkhout@s41.csrd.uiuc.edu (Victor Eijkhout) (05/02/91)
graham@june.cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes: >In article <1991May1.172153.6437@csrd.uiuc.edu> eijkhout@s41.csrd.uiuc.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes: >>typeface: set of lettershapes (e.g., Palatino Bold) >>family of typefaces: set of typefaces that belong together (Palatino) >>font: one typeface in one specific size, and (important!) >> for some specific machine (Palatino Bold on a 300dpi Postscript engine). >The definition of font in this case is too restrictive. Perhaps it would >be better to say that a font is: >one typeface in a specific size and for some specific page description >program (e.g., Palatino Bold implemented in PostScript). >However, this runs into problems since PostScript (and other outline) fonts >do not specify a particular type size. In this case, the only time you >could refer to a type font is between the printer's raster device and >the page. At all other times, you simply have a typeface. >Therefore, the term font is correctly used for computer generated type >when applied to a typeface implemented using bitmaps. Not quite. The term 'font' (old spelling 'fount') has the connotations of 'the way a typeface looks once it has been cast (yes! lead!) for a specific typesetter'. And the Postscript fonts have a lot of characteristics of this: the way certain features suddenly disappear for small sizes, the way curves are rendered. But I admit that this is a muddled issue, and that standards for terminology are simply non-existent. We may be glad that the days when every point size had a name of its own are over... Victor.
vickde@vicstoy.UUCP (Vick De Giorgio) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May1.172153.6437@csrd.uiuc.edu> eijkhout@s41.csrd.uiuc.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes: > >Short summary: >typeface: set of lettershapes (e.g., Palatino Bold) >family of typefaces: set of typefaces that belong together (Palatino) >font: one typeface in one specific size, and (important!) > for some specific machine (Palatino Bold on a 300dpi Postscript engine). > We should also note that the use of scalable, outline type typefaces is leading to a change in the use of the term _font_. The usage of _font_ to include one typeface (a specific shape, a specific weight, as you noted) in all sizes (or no specific size, which is the same thing) is now becoming more common. Probably typographically less precise, but it reflects how people actually use them... =V= -- Vick De Giorgio - vickde@vicstoy.UUCP UUCP - uunet!tarpit!bilver!vicstoy!vickde - The Philosopher's Stone Unix BBS, Orlando FL - (407) 299-3661 1200/2400 24 hours 8N1