Talk:Computer font
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On the typeface talk page, several people complained about how computer font should be a separate article. Now it is. Edit it and make it better. --Jpkotta 08:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Should include information on the proccesses and software involved in producing installable fonts from vector images.
Contents |
[edit] Incomplete
- I'm no font expert, but I was surprised that this article had no reference to OpenType or Apple Advanced Typography. Mpntod 13:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Last November I started a parent article about the new font systems you mentioned above: Smartfont. Unfortunately I do not have enough knowledge to write about differences and similarities of these systems. I am sure there is enough content for both articles, don't you think?--Hhielscher 05:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How Do I?
How do I get a font from the internet? I've downloaded the font, unzipped it, but I can't get it on Word 2003. How do I do this? 206.81.151.68 23:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Different Types of Fonts in use
Could this article give an overview about the different computer font formats please? Like .pfb, .pfm, .afm, .inf, .ofm, .ttf, .otf, .pk, .sfs, .xbm, .abf, .bdf, .fli and whatever. Would it make sense to split the many font formats in deprecated and in use? About the current ones I would like to read about the different use cases and advantages/disadvantages of each. Anyone with font knowledge out there?--Hhielscher 04:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] So what does 12 point font mean?
I was supprised to find that nowhere in this article did information about what 12 point or 24 point (etc) font actually mean. Is every font level representive of the amount of pixels in each word?--Frozenport 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Point size is a typesetting term. Oicumayberight 23:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed merger of outline font and bitmap font articles
Outline and bitmap fonts cannot really be discussed properly without referring to each other for comparisons, so it makes little sense to have two articles for them - particularly when this article is already here and is better written. Neither of them have much information and most of it already appears here anyway, so the best course seems to be to merge them both into here. Asuffield 18:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Merge: I agree with points above. Oicumayberight 19:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
