Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!ucbvax!ucdavis!csus.edu!beach.csulb.edu!nic.csu.net!nrc.com!kosman!kevin
From: kevin@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: Flattenpath (was letter height)
Message-ID: <1356@kosman.UUCP>
Date: 29 May 91 05:07:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: kosman.1356
References: <1991May28.134420.3951@engage.pko.dec.com> <91148.135401CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> <16154@life.ai.mit.edu>
Distribution: comp.lang.postscript
Organization: K.O.'s Manor - Vital Computer Systems, Oxnard, CA 93035
Lines: 24

bkph@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Berthold K.P. Horn) writes:


}If you don't execute flattenpath before pathbox, you will get a bounding
}box for the knots and control points of the path, not of the pat itself.
} ...

}In a properly designed Type 1 font this is not a problem since there must be
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
}knots at all extrema of the outline and so all control points lie in or on the
}character outline bounding box.  But in some Type 1 fonts this is not the
}case, and it certainly isn't the case in the typical Type 3 font (if there
}is such a thing)...

Is this really true?  I'm wondering about the case of rotated letterforms
and slanted letterforms.  I think it's easy in such a case for there to
be real extensions of the path beyond the BB of the control points.
Try a 45-degree rotated dot or something...  Granted, this is not *common*
but if you're looking for full generality in your algorithms, it's wise
to think of such things.
-- 
Kevin O'Gorman ( kevin@kosman.UUCP, kevin%kosman.uucp@nrc.com )
voice: 805-984-8042 Vital Computer Systems, 5115 Beachcomber, Oxnard, CA  93035
Non-Disclaimer: my boss is me, and he stands behind everything I say.