Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!jbn35564
From: jbn35564@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (J.B. Nicholson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Questions about Adobe fonts
Keywords: fonts Adobe RightBrain
Message-ID: <1991Jun9.152516.18035@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 9 Jun 91 15:25:16 GMT
References: <19751@csli.Stanford.EDU> <521@heaven.woodside.ca.us>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Reply-To: jeffo@uiuc.edu
Organization: jeffogeny Software
Lines: 26

In <521@heaven.woodside.ca.us> glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) writes:

>These fonts are actually mastered at Adobe, from their data, so they
>include the bitmap versions for smaller sizes and they are manufactured

I was wondering why anyone bothers publishing "sizes" of scalable fonts
if the whole point in having this type of font is that they are "stretchable"
without losing quality.

If you've got the formula (or whatever) to generate a single character, can't
you just plug different numbers for sizes in to get different sizes out?
Thus never needing to go to bitmapped fonts again?

I know this isn't a technical way of describing it, but it just seems logical
to me that if you've got a stretchable font like these proportional fonts are
then you shouldn't need more than one file to describe the whole font (the
descriptions for every character that that font can do are in that one file).

>--
> Glenn Reid				RightBrain Software
> glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us		NeXT/PostScript developers
> ..{adobe,next}!heaven!glenn		415-326-2974 (NeXTfax 326-2977)

Jeff
--
jeffo@uiuc.edu