27 Nov
2018
27 Nov
'18
6:10 p.m.
On 2018-11-27 8:33 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
...
This covers only a small fraction of the Latin-centric typographic
palette - much of which has existed for 500 years in print (non-Latin
much older). Computerisation has only impoverished that palette, and
this is how it happens: Checklists instead of research.
Work with typographers when trying to represent typography in a
computer. The late Hermann Zapf was Knuth's close friend. That's the
kind of expertise you need on your team.
--Toby
Bold or italic or underlined text shouldn't
be a second class concept,
they have meaning that can be lost when text is conveyed in
circa-1868-plain-text. I've read many letters that predate the
invention of the typewriter, emphasis is often conveyed using
underlines or darkened letters.
I don't think of bold or italic or underline as second class concepts. I
tend to think of the following attributes that can be applied to text:
?? bold
?? italic
?? overline
?? strike through
?? underline
?? superscript exclusive or subscript
?? uppercase exclusive or lowercase
?? opposing case
?? normal (none of the above)
I don't think that normal is superior to the other
four (five) in any
way.? I do think that normal does occur VASTLY more frequently than the
any combination of the others.? As such normal is what things default to
as an optimization.? IMHO that optimization does not relegate the other
styles to second class.
...