Talk:Typeface/Archive 1

message: Any point in having a "list of famous typefaces"? It seems absurdly open-ended. zadcat 19:27 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)
:I'd like a list of fonts that are used in famous logos Suppafly 17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous typefaces list

message: I think we should add Bitstream Vera to the article, like to the font families and so forth. What about it?
- Repabil 22:12, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention Bitstream Vera?

message: Anticipating objections: Everywhere in the world, old-style Germanic typefaces are blackletter, but only in the UK are they Gothic — but Gothic applies universally to sans-serif type (especially within the printing trade). Calling old-style Germanic typefaces "blackletter" in the first instance is thus clearer to all readerships.
See OED2 "Gothic":
:b. In England, the name of the type commonly used for printing German, as distinguished from roman and italic characters. (Formerly, and still in non-technical use, equivalent to black letter.) 
:c. Applied in the U.S. to the type called in England GROTESQUE (also sans-ceriph, and, by some type-founders, doric; formerly stone letter). 
 — mendel ☎ 04:09, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
I think "everywhere" in your comment refers to other English-speaking countries (and indeed, this is an English-language encyclopedia). The UK here follows continental European usage, and I think the other English-speaking countries are the anomaly here. I don't know about the printing trade. gpvos 13:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Blackletter v. Gothic

message: The following note was moved from the article to here where (I hope) it belongs:
To do:
: decorational fonts
: Sample image for Grotesques
chocolateboy 19:18, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: To-do

message: I suggest that we reorganize this article and break out sections into separate articles. We should create a separate Font/Fount article, as well as a computer font article (that's a large topic!). The fount article would deal with historic meanings of the word, as well as the contemporary meaning.
The details about font families should be broken out into a separate article, but briefly discussed here.
Some of the things included in this article are general typography topics, and should be broken out.
Serifs can easily make up an article of their own. There are many types of serifs. The current coverage of them is sufficient for this article.
Further, we must reduce the Latin script POV in this article, specifically by discussing and including images of glyphs from other scripts. — David Remahl 22:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not forget to include this: font family (HTML). — Monedula 11:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganise

message: this is less than optimal.
going to Computer font takes you back to Typeface. There should be a separate page for Computer Font that doesn't have a redirect here. I'll check back later - please remove the redirect - if we're going to make a Computer Font page, it should be independent from the get go - redirects to "parent" pages should only happen when the parent in completely inclusive of the material in the child page, and will likely stay that way (such as USA / United States of America / America / United States / etc.)
I've spent many years designing computer fonts, so I could easily contribute a great deal to such a page, but I'm not experienced enough in matters most wikipedial to fix the errant redirects.
Hwarwick
:Just click on Computer font, and when the page about Typeface appears, click on (Redirected from Computer font) at the top of the page. When you see    1. REDIRECT typeface, click Edit this page. In the edit box, remove #REDIRECT and put in any text you like. The redirect is then transformed into a regular article. — Monedula 08:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Computer font redirects here

message: What fonts come with standard installation of Windows? Linux? 
Sockpuppy 15:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For Windows, see this page. For Linux, it will depend on the distribution. --Zundark 12:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Default Fonts

message: This may be a stupid question, but what is the font used on Wikipedia? I have searched for it and cannot find it.
:It is sans-serif. See also font family (HTML). — Monedula 06:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what skin you are using (see your preferences). There is a CSS stylesheet for each skin. The default is MonoBook, which specifies only the sans-serif font family; it is up to your browser to choose a sans-serif font. On Windows, unless you've changed anything, you probably get Arial.—mjb 19:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia font

message: Hello, this area is far removed from my interests or specialities so I'm asking here; I stumbled upon an article for Andreas® Std Regular while browsing through the orphans list and was wondering whether it qualifies as notable enough to merit inclusion or not, and if so, where it should be linked in to. Cheers, MC MasterChef 14:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is notable. It got moved to Andreas (typeface) in February 2006.—mjb 19:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for font article's inclusion in Wikipedia

message: I think we should somehow move all but the basic facts about blackletter fonts from this page to the main Blackletter article and provide a "Main Article: Blackletter" link at the top of that section.  However, I'd rather not attempt this unless I have to, since I have no knowledge whatsoever about blackletters.  Does anyone want to try?   Vontafeijos 04:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Blackletter

message: I'm sure the contributor list overlaps substantially, but there is a discussion under the article on "serif" about whether the term "roman" can be used to refer to a serif typeface (or, perhaps, whether that usage used to exist but is now outmoded).  If anyone wants to weigh in…
—Bentorr 00:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Serif =? "roman"

message: AFAIK the definition under 'font families' is wrong. Times is a 'font family' (i.e. a group of fonts varying only in weight, angle, etc). Serif, sans-serif etc. are not 'font families' - I'm not sure what the official name for these is but for now 'types of font' might do. So I've taken the liberty of changing this. Ben Finn 14:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay, thanks Ben! That was really bugging me, last time I read it. Thomas Phinney 08:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Font families

message: Is there any interest in having a subject on which typefaces are used in popular corporate logos?
Suppafly 03:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fonts/typefaces in corporate logos

message: What is "extralpha"?  Google returns 3 hits, one of which is a wikipedia mirror.  I think the section should be deleted. Bleedstupid 18:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every reference on google, minus one entry where someone has a username of extralpha appears to be copied from wikipedia.  Unless some other source for the definition can be found, I would agree that it should be removed. Suppafly 17:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extralpha?

message: I've started a discussion at Category talk:Typefaces#Should typefaces go in parent category? about typeface categorization. I encourage anyone here to weigh in. —Chowbok 00:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parent vs. child categories

message: This is really, really bugging me, so I have to get a second opinion.  A lot of articles on individual fonts (Courier (typeface) and Times New Roman, for instance) have started to italicize every mention of the font name.  That seems very weird to me, because I've never seen them that way, even in books on typography.  Is there some justification for this?  I'm tempted to start undoing the italics. -Vontafeijos 05:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's ridiculous. They're not ships. I say go ahead and undo that when you see it. —Chowbok 15:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Font names do not need to be in italics. Thanks again. Arbo 21:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK.  Thanks for the input. -Vontafeijos 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it throughout the Arial Unicode MS article purely for consistency, since someone had already started it. I don't mind changing it back.—mjb 19:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Italicized font names

message: The "7. Designer's Guide for Modern Good Looking Documents" section of the LDP's Font-HOWTO (http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Font-HOWTO/typography.html ) is a good introductory summary of Font styles and groups.  It might be useful as either a reference or an external link for this or a related page.  I'm not sure exactly where it should go, so I'm mentioning it here instead. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested external link 

message: I have created  and Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts as reflections of the United States's strange position on the subject of the copyrightability of fonts.  Dragons flight 01:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD-font 

message: If it isn't on this talk page it's in one of the archives.Talk:Typeface/Archive 1
Arbo talk 02:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: I think this statement is confused:
"Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew, Japanese and Sanskrit are all readily available in faux fonts."
I think what the article is trying to say is that Latin fonts that imitate these scripts are readily available.  One way to say it might be,
"Latin fonts that look like Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew, Japanese, or Sanskrit are widely available."
66.157.122.153 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faux fonts 

message: Some of the terms being discussed/used are so new, they do not show up in even contemporary books on type. In a very noble manner Wikipedia encourages editors to write toward the average person not the doctorate student. That said, in the area of type what often comes on board is a subset of language that comes largely from the world of the PC,  Microsoft products, and those who develop them. Example "superset" does not show up in the very accessible Thinking with Type, by Ellen Lupton, Lewis Blackwell's 20th-Century Type, or Robin Dodd's From Gutenberg to Open Type. All either published in the last 2 years, or a new edition published in the last 2 years. Unfortunately attempts to gently push the naming conventions toward their historic typographic roots, and bring them closer to those terms typeface designers use, are frequently perceived as elitism (or arcane) rather than an opportunity. 
To put this in some perspective, type has been around since 1450, digital type since about 1978, and fonts accessible in every office and many homes since about 1990. While I don't expect we should expect contemporary people to stop using the word font and start using the word typeface taking some of terminology from the type profession could make Wikipedia type-related more definitive, and in line what is taught in basic typography courses in North America, Europe, and the rest of the world using our alphabet.
I teach typography to graphic design and fine arts students. The curriculum in type 1 is basic, and pretty similar school to school. Typeface and font are today used interchangeably. But the roots of font are as a full character set in a single point size for a single weight of a single typeface. The example immediately above is perfect. A typeface is legally pretty much a name for a particular design. The design, like Garamond, Helvetica, or Didot may have several, or many versions. Example, Garamond: Adobe Garamond, Garamond 3, Simoncini Garamond, ITC Garamond, or Stempel Garamond.  A font family or typeface family is a group of related types with variations within. Like human families, some are quite large (Univers, Helvetica Neue, or Thesis) or fairly small (Bulmer). The larger families may include multiple widths, condensed through extended, and multiple weights, all possibly in roman and italic. Some typeface families like FF Scala or Rotis have related variations that are serif, sans-serif and a mix of both. CApitol3 12:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving target of terminology

message: I removed the portion in the intro that distinguishes between a font and typeface based on their respective legal protections.  It's inaccurate in a couple ways.
First, the level of protection varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Many European countries, for example, afford copyright protection to typefaces.  Second, even within the US, typefaces may be protected by design patent. Terry Carroll 14:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  distinguishing by legal status 

message: This section makes good points but it's not very good to illustrate the two varieties with the words "Proportional" and "Monospace". Much better to use the same word; I'd suggest "proportional". Why? The letters in "monospace" are all the same width, whether in proportional or monospace fonts. The illustration should have a number of letters which are narrow in proportional fonts. Then, the two versions (proportional and monospace) would better illustrate the differences between the two. Interlingua  talk email 02:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proportion

message: Do you think that information on 'Pitch' should be included in the subsection 'Proportion' or as a separate sub-section of 'Typeface anatomy'? (ext link for a glossary reference, though not one I would include in an article)
I bring this up in relation to Characters Per Inch having been nominated for deletion via WP:PROD.  If information in that article could be incorporated into here, the article could be merged here and removed from the PROD-deletion workstream. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pitch 

message: Because of the use of monospaced typefaces in computer applications, it should indeed be discussed in full within its own article, especially since equal credence is given to serif and sans-serif faces.
BANZ111 06:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Break off Monospaced

message: Why is there no mention of Greek and Cyrillic typefaces? The variety can be seen at  and  but there's no discussion in the article. EamonnPKeane 19:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman-centric?

message: Several articles about individual typefaces describe their subjects as "realist" (e.g. Akzidenz Grotesk) or "humanist" (e.g.  Gill Sans), without explaining what these terms mean. It would be helpful if the difference was explained someplace, and this article seems like the best place. Our disambiguation page Humanist does include a brief explanation - "in typography, a group of sans-serif typefaces with some calligraphic features, such as Humana, Optima, Frutiger, Johnston, Gill Sans, and the like" - but more background would be great. Thanks, FreplySpang 15:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the articles need links to VOX-ATypI classification? --Hebisddave 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely! FreplySpang 20:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please explain realist vs. humanist 

message: Every time a typeface is referred to as a font, it smacks of ignorance. Font sizes are only relevant to machines. Typefaces existed long before machines. Therefore, a font is a typeface; not the other way around! Oicumayberight (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely right! — Tirk·ﬂ “…” 08:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough. It's as well that we make the proper distinction now, but I suspect that in a few years the distinction will be more archaic than proper. Rivertorch (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They predicted that we'd all be completely paperless by now too. Fonts are to typefaces, what vehicles are to passengers. When electronic display becomes the only method of delivering information, then perhaps the distinction will be irrelevant. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you consider how most people define the word "font", it's possible to have typefaces without fonts, but not fonts without typefaces. If the distinction ever becomes irrelevant, then "fonts" should be considered archaic. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The term would only become archaic if it fell into disuse. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No, No, No!

message: I propose to add the following text to this article:
===Gaelic typefaces===
Gaelic fonts were first used for the Irish language in 1571; their use was effectively confined to Ireland, though Gaelic typefaces were designed and produced in France, Belgium, and Italy. Gaelic typefaces make use of insular letterforms, and early fonts made use of a variety of abbreviations deriving from the manuscript tradition. Early fonts used for the Anglo-Saxon language, also using insular letterforms, can be classified as Gaelic typefaces, distinct from Roman or Antiqua typefaces.(Reference to Lynam and McGuinne here) Various forms exist including manuscript, traditional, and modern styles, with angular, round, uncial, monowidth, sans-serif, and grotesque features.(Reference to History and classification of Gaelic typefaces, 2000-06-19 here).
:OK, now, I don't see anything controversial in this small paragraph, and no one has complained about it. May we add it back to the article? -- Evertype·✆ 21:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the first sentence should be a little more direct/definitional. Something like "Gaelic fonts refer to the Irish language typefaces created between the 16th and 20th centuries whose forms are derivative of the insular and half-uncial Irish manuscript tradition...." Hmmm.. that sounds a little jargony, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at. Also, I'm curious about the Anglo-Saxon=Gaelic part (does McGuinne discuss that?). Saying both sans-serif and grotesque is a little redundant (also round and uncial). Other than these minor concerns, I see no further problem with adding this section. -Andrew c [talk] 22:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some edits taking this into account. By the way I talked to McGuinne the other night. -- Evertype·✆ 23:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neat (re:McGuinne). Sounds like a fascinating encounter. Anyway, do you have a page number for a source regarding Anglo-Saxon typefaces being considered Gaelic type? It seems odd to me, so I'm curious to read the context for myself. Also, since your new version mentions Roman/Antiqua, perhaps we should mention that Irish also used type in those styles, and that it is now the dominant style? I don't want it sounding like Irish could only be written in the Gaelic style.-Andrew c [talk] 03:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure Irish orthography handles the latter. The Saxon faces have insular letterforms (long r, long s, t, etc) and pre-dated the Gaelic typefaces somewhat as I recall. You can see some on the Caslon poster (top of the main article here), bottom of the third column. McGuinne refers to arguments as to whether the Queen Elizabeth type was based on a Saxon one or devised afresh. -- Evertype·✆ 09:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But we need a source that categorizes these Saxon types as "Gaelic". I recall reading in McGuinne bits and pieces, but nothing that would support the claim we have in this article, so I was hoping you had a specific page in mind that I missed.-Andrew c [talk] 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Would you propose to classify them in some other way? Did you look at the Caslon image? And can I ask you another question? My font Everson Mono is described as "a monospaced transitional sans serif". Is that all right with you? Are you asking for a source for that classification as well? And again, if McGuinne did not specifically state "the Saxon types fall into the category of Gaelic typefaces" it is because that level of classification was orthogonal to the purposes for which he was writing his book. I could drop everything and scour McGuinne to try to find something, but really, how else would one classify the Caslon font? It's hybrid insular, and that means Gaelic (i.e. it doesn't mean Blackletter and it doesn't mean Roman because neither of those use insular letterforms). That's not Original Research, either. It's looking and seeing. -- Evertype·✆ 19:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed new section, Gaelic typefaces

message: Gaelic fonts were first used for the Irish language in 1571; their use was effectively confined to Ireland, though Gaelic typefaces were designed and produced in France, Belgium, and Italy. Gaelic typefaces make use of insular letterforms, and early fonts made use of a variety of abbreviations deriving from the manuscript tradition. Early fonts used for the Anglo-Saxon language, also using insular letterforms, can be classified as Gaelic typefaces, distinct from Roman or Antiqua typefaces.(Reference to Lynam and McGuinne here) Various forms exist including manuscript, traditional, and modern styles, with angular, round, uncial, monowidth, sans-serif, and grotesque features.(Reference to History and classification of Gaelic typefaces, 2000-06-19 here).
:OK, now, I don't see anything controversial in this small paragraph, and no one has complained about it. May we add it back to the article? -- Evertype·✆ 21:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the first sentence should be a little more direct/definitional. Something like "Gaelic fonts refer to the Irish language typefaces created between the 16th and 20th centuries whose forms are derivative of the insular and half-uncial Irish manuscript tradition...." Hmmm.. that sounds a little jargony, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at. Also, I'm curious about the Anglo-Saxon=Gaelic part (does McGuinne discuss that?). Saying both sans-serif and grotesque is a little redundant (also round and uncial). Other than these minor concerns, I see no further problem with adding this section. -Andrew c [talk] 22:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some edits taking this into account. By the way I talked to McGuinne the other night. -- Evertype·✆ 23:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neat (re:McGuinne). Sounds like a fascinating encounter. Anyway, do you have a page number for a source regarding Anglo-Saxon typefaces being considered Gaelic type? It seems odd to me, so I'm curious to read the context for myself. Also, since your new version mentions Roman/Antiqua, perhaps we should mention that Irish also used type in those styles, and that it is now the dominant style? I don't want it sounding like Irish could only be written in the Gaelic style.-Andrew c [talk] 03:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure Irish orthography handles the latter. The Saxon faces have insular letterforms (long r, long s, t, etc) and pre-dated the Gaelic typefaces somewhat as I recall. You can see some on the Caslon poster (top of the main article here), bottom of the third column. McGuinne refers to arguments as to whether the Queen Elizabeth type was based on a Saxon one or devised afresh. -- Evertype·✆ 09:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But we need a source that categorizes these Saxon types as "Gaelic". I recall reading in McGuinne bits and pieces, but nothing that would support the claim we have in this article, so I was hoping you had a specific page in mind that I missed.-Andrew c [talk] 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Would you propose to classify them in some other way? Did you look at the Caslon image? And can I ask you another question? My font Everson Mono is described as "a monospaced transitional sans serif". Is that all right with you? Are you asking for a source for that classification as well? And again, if McGuinne did not specifically state "the Saxon types fall into the category of Gaelic typefaces" it is because that level of classification was orthogonal to the purposes for which he was writing his book. I could drop everything and scour McGuinne to try to find something, but really, how else would one classify the Caslon font? It's hybrid insular, and that means Gaelic (i.e. it doesn't mean Blackletter and it doesn't mean Roman because neither of those use insular letterforms). That's not Original Research, either. It's looking and seeing. -- Evertype·✆ 19:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaelic typefaces

message: Does anyone know what Wikipedia’s font is?
Luke 18:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Hoefler Text. See :meta:Logo.-Andrew c [talk] 18:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's the logo's font, but does anyone know what the font is for the body text in articles? Voyaging (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are using the default stylesheet, monobook, then the text is set to render as "san-serif", which means the default san-serif text on your computer/browser. On my set up, Arial is the typeface that is rendered. I can't be certain what you are seeing on your machine (especially if you are no using Windows XP/Firefox, if you have have changed your user stylesheet). Hope this helps. If you don't think it's Arial, then you could post a screenshot of the text to perhaps the computing reference desk (WP:RD). Hope this helps. -Andrew c [talk] 14:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that's Arial. Thanks. C Teng [talk] 19:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font 

message: I think stencil fonts deserve a mention somewhere, would they be a display type or how would they be classified? Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there could be section on special purpose fonts that satisfy some physical constraint. OCR is the only other one I can think of besides stencil beut there's probably others. Dmcq (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Most stencil fonts are simply in the style of "real" physical stencil fonts; they were created for use as digital fonts and their "stencil" nature is purely decorative. For example: Nyx, Conga Brava Stencil. I don't regard stencil fonts as of sufficient notability to be in the main "typeface" article. Thomas Phinney (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stencil fonts 

message: Is it too much to ask that articles on individual typefaces have as complete an example of the font as possible. At least upper and lower case alphabet, then perhaps italics too, then more if possible. If I am reading about the characteristics of Windsor Rs, for example, I'd like to see the R in front of me, not have to click to a link and make the discussion of characteristics disappear. If they are copyrighted I could understand. I am sure there is a position on fair use. Tsinfandel (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but I think the main problem with your suggestion might be that it would either make the image too large to fit comfortably in the infobox or else make each glyph too small to show adequate detail onscreen. When it comes to (whispering and crossing fingers) copyright and fair use, WP policy is regrettably strict. Suggest opening relevant myfonts.com page in second window alongside the WP article. It should be possible to add an additional image illustrating a specific characteristic, such as Windsor Rs, that's discussed in the text. I'd be willing to give that a go, anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Or at least show characters that have the signature features of the font, especially if they are discussed in the article. A few characters, not even spelling words, that can't not be fair use. Tsinfandel (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's shouldn't and then there's can't. (My limited experience in this area has led me to believe that the two often fail to coincide in this little corner of the Web.) Anyway, are you proposing to create and upload some new images? If this needs to be done for various articles, it might be well to begin by identifying the typefaces that merit such attention. Rivertorch (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fuller fonts, please

message: In the sentence "When specified in typographic sizes (points, kyus), the height of an em-square, an invisible box which is typically a bit larger than the distance from the tallest ascender to the lowest descender, is scaled to equal the specified size." there is a mention of em-square. Does this refer to em? Or em-quad? Both perhaps? I think this wording could be better since it's quite incomprehensible to laymen - as me. --Best regards, Biblbroks (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  em-square