[XeTeX] [OT] Free fonts for fontspec examples?

William Adams will.adams at frycomm.com
Wed Jul 14 15:26:23 CEST 2010

On Jul 14, 2010, at 8:44 AM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:

> I agree with all except (possibly) the last part : what exactly
> do you mean by "reflect modern sensibilities" ?  Would you advocate
> changing the wording of a reproduction of a historical document
> solely because its original wording might these days be found
> offensive by some ?  Thomas Bowdler might rejoice, but speaking
> personally I would value historical accuracy over political
> correctness any day of the week.

I agree w/ you, it was more a comment on what some other people do / want to do.

On Jul 14, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote:

> On 14 Jul 2010, at 13:24, William Adams wrote:
>> (whose wife purchased a reproduction of The Declaration of Independence for him as a Christmas gift last year:
>> http://mbelloff.tripod.com/goddardbroadside.html
>> --- we got the first edition w/ the original wording, but there's a new one w/ updated, more inclusive wording)
> I can understand the desire to print a reproduction of such a document, using typography (and sometimes even technology) that is appropriate to its period.

Yeah, one thing which I always found bizarre were the reproductions of Kelmscott Press books which were printed offset --- it's just not possible to fully appreciate the work w/o the wonderful impression and the _incredibly_ black ink of the original.

> But am I alone in feeling that a "reproduction" with "updated wording" is an oxymoron?! If you change the wording, it is no longer a reproduction of the Declaration; it is a modern document purporting to express the intent of the 18th-century Declaration in 21st-century terms. As such, trying to make it LOOK like an 18th-century document is anachronistic and misleading.

Yeah, I thought it was weird too --- when the printer first announced the project, I got the impression that she was considering doing only the updated wording version and was quite relieved when she announced there would be two (I got the original).

> (who would be appalled if his reproduction Gutenberg Bible page from the museum in Mainz had "updated, more inclusive wording" than the version Gutenberg himself printed)

Me too. I was rather surprised that the updated text version had a larger edition than the other.

On the gripping hand, one could argue that it's simply a matter of making the text editorially consistent w/ the Constitution (``We the people...'' and all that). One can also see the utility of it for classroom usage w/ younger students so that one can introduce the text w/o having to explain 18th century sexism.

Now I need to keep my eye out for an historically accurate reproduction of The Magna Carta....


William Adams
senior graphic designer
Fry Communications
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.

More information about the XeTeX mailing list