Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!ken
From: ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap)
Newsgroups: comp.fonts
Subject: Re: Universal font standard
Message-ID: <8462@sol.ARPA>
Date: 10 Apr 88 02:43:15 GMT
References: <3178@gryphon.CTS.COM> <219@ateng.UUCP> <7645@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap)
Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY
Lines: 17

|Well, I don't!  Isomorphic fonts (ones that are simply linearly
|scaled for different sizes) look ugly except near their original
|design size.  If we're going to put a lot of effort into font
|description, let's do it right.

In TeX, the design size and magnification are separated. cmtt12.300pk
means a 12 point tt font at design size, while cmtt10.360pk means a 10
point tt font at 120% design size. They look different.  Fonts that
scale linearly do not have a design size suffix. Of the TeX fonts, only
cminch (Inch-High Sans Serif Bold Extended Caps and Digits) lacks the
design size suffix.

So either you have to indicate in the font description how metrics
should vary with design size (like what METAFONT files do) or have
sub-families of fonts, by design size.

	Ken