Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mintaka!ai-lab!wheat-chex!bkph
From: bkph@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu (Berthold K.P. Horn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: Flattenpath (was letter height)
Message-ID: <16181@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 29 May 91 12:35:37 GMT
References: <1991May28.134420.3951@engage.pko.dec.com> <91148.135401CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> <16154@life.ai.mit.edu> <1356@kosman.UUCP>
Sender: news@ai.mit.edu
Distribution: comp.lang.postscript
Lines: 16
In-reply-to: kevin@kosman.UUCP's message of 29 May 91 05:07:55 GMT


} In a properly designed Type 1 font this is not a problem since there must be
} knots at all extrema of the outline; 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.

Well, yes, but you can't use the bounding box (rectangle aligned with x and
y axes) of a rotated character to do what the original author wanted to
do, namely  mirror characters about the character's horizontal or vertical
axis. You need a bounding box with sides parallel to the original x and y
axes of the space in which the character is defined...