Re: Font Configuration Applet

В Вск, 05/12/2004 в 01:20 +0100, uws пишет:
> På Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 12:43:52AM +0100, Markus Bertheau skrev:
> > ?? ??????, 05/12/2004 ?? 00:28 +0100, Samuel Abels ??????????:
> > > Also, remember that some
> > > fonts do not have "bold".
> > That's a problem of these fonts and maybe distributions should not ship
> > such fonts. Fonts the user added don't count - if they don't have bold,
> > then the window title will just not be bold.
> Do you know anything about typography? I guess not.

Not much. Noone of the my imaginary set of GNOME personas does either.

> Not having a 'bold' version is not a problem (as you put it); it's purely a
> design matter.


>   <quote who="Robert Bringhurst" where="The Elements of Typographic Style">
>     "Bold and condensed faces became a fashion in the nineteenth century,
>     partially displacing italics and small caps. Bold weights and sets of
>     titling figures have been added retroactively to many earlier faces,
>     though they lack any historical justification."
>   </quote>
> Note that bold face is not a boolean font property, although many computers
> may treat them as such. Most professional fonts ship in different weights.
> "Bold face" is just one of these.
> Why would one want a bold title bar? Most characters will be too wide and
> too ugly. Bold is a replacement for italics (also note that italics !=
> slanted), but the use remains the same: emphasize certain portions of the
> text. So, why would one want to emphasize the title bar?

I don't know. I just said all that about the window title being bold
because it's default here and I thought there was a good reason for
that. I'm fine with a non-bold window title font.

Markus Bertheau <twanger bluetwanger de>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]