 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp schrieb:
> (And the "height" is that between two baselines in the font. The font
> graphics themselves can go over those lines.)
That's actually not true - at least not in practice. Instead, word
processing software will usually adjust the line spacing to some other
font properties.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 schrieb:
>> And there is 72 points to the inch.
>
> Depending on who you ask. ;-)
>
> (PostScript assigns 72 points to the inch, TeX assigns 72.72, and
> apparently other systems assign yet other values.)
>
> Fortunately, in this instance I'm only interested in PS.
The traditional US-american printers' "pica point" was defined for one
pica (12 points) to be 0.166 inch (giving ca. 72.29 points per inch).
TeX, being quite traditionalistic regarding typesetting, probably bases
its definition on this older standard, although I'm quite puzzled why it
uses the slightly lower value of 72.27 (not 72.72). Maybe it has to do
with the evolution of the inch since the day the "pica point" was
standardized. Also, there seems to have been alternative suggestions for
the definition of the pica point back in the time when it was
standardized in 1886, one if which would have resulted in exactly 72.27
points per inch.
However, /the/ "DTP point" gives exactly 72 points per inch, and any
software using a different definition is a rare exception.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/3/2009 7:17 PM, clipka wrote:
> The traditional US-american printers' "pica point" was defined for one
> pica (12 points) to be 0.166 inch (giving ca. 72.29 points per inch).
> TeX, being quite traditionalistic regarding typesetting, probably bases
> its definition on this older standard, although I'm quite puzzled why it
> uses the slightly lower value of 72.27 (not 72.72). Maybe it has to do
> with the evolution of the inch since the day the "pica point" was
> standardized. Also, there seems to have been alternative suggestions for
> the definition of the pica point back in the time when it was
> standardized in 1886, one if which would have resulted in exactly 72.27
> points per inch.
>
> However, /the/ "DTP point" gives exactly 72 points per inch, and any
> software using a different definition is a rare exception.
Pica pica!
.
|\
| \.,,,__________
/ __!!/
|(%) (%) \
() . () |
\ ,., /
/ \
\"/ \''\ |
\ <_/
\ <_,|
.,..,,/"/, /\\
\ | \____/ \\
"" __//
_____ ||''
/ / \\||
/ / \,|
|__| \/
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/3/2009 5:49 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Does *anybody* here know what the hell the width of each character in a
> Courier 10pt typeface is?! (Apparently it isn't 10pt.)
So, have you found a single guide which answers all your questions? I'm
interested in learning about it too.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD wrote:
> Pica pica!
>
> .
> |\
> | \.,,,__________
> / __!!/
> |(%) (%) \
> () . () |
> \ ,., /
> / \
> \"/ \''\ |
> \ <_/
> \ <_,|
> .,..,,/"/, /\\
> \ | \____/ \\
> "" __//
> _____ ||''
> / / \\||
> / / \,|
> |__| \/
>
Oh dear God... >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD wrote:
> On 11/3/2009 5:49 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> Does *anybody* here know what the hell the width of each character in a
>> Courier 10pt typeface is?! (Apparently it isn't 10pt.)
>
> So, have you found a single guide which answers all your questions? I'm
> interested in learning about it too.
Nope. In the end, I had to measure the metrics emperically. Google was
useless.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
