[XeTeX] resolution (was Re: The future of XeTeX)

Keith J. Schultz keithjschultz at web.de
Wed Aug 1 19:41:04 CEST 2012

Am 01.08.2012 um 18:56 schrieb Zdenek Wagner <zdenek.wagner at gmail.com>:

> 2012/8/1 Keith J. Schultz <keithjschultz at web.de>:
>> Hi Zdenek,
[snip, snip]

> No, microtype does not offer more glyphs, it offers glyph distorted in
> many different ratios. Multiple Master Fonts would be able to solve it
> in a better way but they were declared obsolete. There are just a few
> MMF fonts distributed with Acrobat Reader but the development was
> stopped years ago.
	Are you sure that you know what a glyph is. It is poosible to
	take the shape glyph and "distorted" this is then rendered.
	Factly, you are creating a different glyph.
	Or would would consider a straight line to be a circle. Certainly,
	you do not! In other words you are saying that the glph — is the
	same as o! 

>> To come back to Gutenberg, how Glyphs did he use? (No, I do not want an
>> answer) Literally, serveral thousand if not millions. I leave it as a thought
>> experiemnt to figure out why!
> Approximately 2000 per page. They could be reused but not endlessly.
> We use computer typesetting systems because production can be faster
> and cheaper, not because Gutenberg was unable to do it.
	This is exactly, my point. Craftsmen can create fine details, yet the
	positioning and replication induces errors which is beyond the resolution of
	the details! Then, there is, also not just one craftsman involved. each adding 
	his/her own personal touch. These variations gone beyond are higher than
	the resolution we have today. I do admit that these variations is what adds
	to the artist value.


More information about the XeTeX mailing list