serif and sans-serif fonts listing?

[Brian]

Re: serif and sans-serif fonts listing?

Alan Illeman wrote:[color=blue]
> an 'expert' puts his money where his mouth is, and if 'heavies' here
> can't get off their collective butts and put some of their expertise
> into their webpages[/color]

I've been following this thread, and I can't understand what you're
complaining about. In what way have the regulars not "practiced what
they preach", to quote you from another message.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

Feel the slap of a white glove (Was:Re: serif and sans-serif fonts listing?)

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:21:30 -0400, "Alan Illeman"
<illemann@surfb est.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jrexon@newsguy .com> wrote in message
>news:9pnci0th7 9ljo7ecn4kq078n lspuvs0s66@4ax. com...[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:02:03 -0400, "Alan Illeman"
>> <illemann@surfb est.net> wrote:[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> At least I for my self think that we have done just that.[/color]
>
>You (perhaps)
>
>[snip]
>[color=green]
>> So; Alan, get yourself a smaller horse...[/color]
>
>...an 'expert' puts his money where his mouth is, and if 'heavies'
>here can't get off their collective butts and put some of their
>expertise into their webpages, it's a sad day for this ng.[/color]

You are not a very good web scooter are you?

Let's see now: If I give you a very specific challenge.

Can you show for real that you have found the reason for, and really do
understand why, the suggested default style sheet for CSS2.1/HTML4
specifies a value of 1.12 as initial value for the 'line-height'
property.

(it is exactly 1.12 not 1.11 nor 1.13 nor any other value)

Make me believe that you have learned and understood the background of
that value and I will give back to you that "expert badge" that I
somehow got hold of for just having a solid interest in typography and
graphic design in my spare time.

Hint: Win users do _not_ need Internet access to find out about the
reason in question.

When you are done, you may also have found out why a reasonable level of
"pragmatism " is required in order to "let tomorrow come".

[Alan Illeman]

Re: serif and sans-serif fonts listing?


"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jrexon@newsguy .com> wrote in message
news:vrudi0hots geasmslip559gpv 7shqdql8h@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:21:30 -0400, "Alan Illeman"
>
> Let's see now: If I give you a very specific challenge.
>
> Can you show for real that you have found the reason for, and really do
> understand why, the suggested default style sheet for CSS2.1/HTML4
> specifies a value of 1.12 as initial value for the 'line-height'
> property.
>
> (it is exactly 1.12 not 1.11 nor 1.13 nor any other value)
>
> Make me believe that you have learned and understood the background of
> that value and I will give back to you that "expert badge" that I
> somehow got hold of for just having a solid interest in typography and
> graphic design in my spare time.[/color]

I don't know what makes you believe that I am well versed enough to
answer this question as I'm certainly no expert in typography. Maybe
they just made a typo ;-)

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

Re: serif and sans-serif fonts listing?

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 08:29:05 -0400, "Alan Illeman"
<illemann@surfb est.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jrexon@newsguy .com> wrote in message
>news:vrudi0hot sgeasmslip559gp v7shqdql8h@4ax. com...[color=green]
>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:21:30 -0400, "Alan Illeman"[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> ...a value of 1.12 as initial value for the 'line-height'
>> (it is exactly 1.12 not 1.11 nor 1.13 nor any other value)[/color][/color]
[...][color=blue]
>I don't know what makes you believe that I am well versed enough to
>answer this question as I'm certainly no expert in typography.[/color]

I was offering you a chance to "show off" a bit :-)
[color=blue]
>Maybe they just made a typo ;-)[/color]

Nope; line-height: 1.12; is a rather well thought out property value.

As it happens this is the value you need in Windows to create the
"looks" of what really should have been 'line-height: 1;' as per CSS
definitions.

If this peculiarity has its roots in Windows font rendering algorithms
or if it's an inherent property of most True Type fonts is beyond my
knowledge.

You can verify this for your self with e.g. MS-Word and the following
character sequence...

Ép(type SHIFT+ENTER here to get a plain new line)
pÉ

É is usually available as ALT+0201 on most Win keyboards if you do not
have direct access to an accent key as I have on my Swedish keyboard.

Do some experiments with a big fixed font size, e.g. 72 points, and you
will find that you need to set the line height in MS-word to...

72 * 1.12 = 81 points

....in order to get the diacritical mark on the lower line 'É' not to be
clipped by the descender on the upper line 'p'.

That 1.12 factor seems to hold true good enough on most of the usual
standard Windows fonts. Only real exception I have found is "Courier
New" which seems to be designed and rendered to some other criteria's.

--
Rex

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: serif and sans-serif fonts listing?

Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy .com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Maybe they just made a typo ;-)[/color]
>
> Nope; line-height: 1.12; is a rather well thought out property value.[/color]

It's always nice to believe the best possible about other people's
actions and their thoughtfulness, but I'm afraid you are pushing it too
far here. When the number 1.12 first emerged in this context, it surely
wasn't well thought of - because an earlier CSS 2.1 draft had
line-height: 1.12em. This was fixed after it was pointed out what
problems the em unit causes in this context due to inheritance.
(The computed value is inherited. See the description of line-height
property.)

I've been puzzled: CSS 1 said 1.1, CSS 2 said/says 1.33, one CSS 2.1
draft said 1.12em and the current draft says 1.12. And they say that all
these are "based on extensive research into current UA practice" as well
as non-normatively recommended for use in browsers by default. As far as
I can see, none of the values is what populars browsers do (which is
about 1.2 or somewhat more), and none of them is suitable for a typical
browsing situation.

So why would 1.12 be rather well thought, and why don't they _say_ what
it is based on? The fluctuations in the specifications, given without
explaining any reasons, are hardly convincing.
[color=blue]
> As it happens this is the value you need in Windows to create the
> "looks" of what really should have been 'line-height: 1;' as per CSS
> definitions.[/color]

This is debatable, but assuming you're right, it means that the value is
surely wrong. A line height of 1 is hardly suitable - especially as an
overall default! It leaves no space between lines of text.
[color=blue]
> Do some experiments with a big fixed font size, e.g. 72 points, and you
> will find that you need to set the line height in MS-word to...
>
> 72 * 1.12 = 81 points
>
> ...in order to get the diacritical mark on the lower line 'É' not to be
> clipped by the descender on the upper line 'p'.[/color]

Why MS Word? We can test it using Web browsers. Especially because then
we see the effect of actual browser defaults. They prevent the clipping
_and_ they leave at least some space between the diacritic and the
descender.

In fact, the theoretical CSS 2 default of 1.33 would be reasonable for
some fonts like Verdana. But for the common default font, Times New
Roman, it's too large.

As a practical conclusion, the typical browser default of about 1.2 is
suitable (as a browser default, other things being equal), so it's nice
that browser vendors have ignored the "default style sheets" in CSS
specifications in this respect. They probably should have set the default
somewhat larger, by the principle that defaults should make text legible
with a reasonable certainty rather than aim at esthetically optimal
rendering when everything is vanilla. But if they had done that, we would
probably have seen a lot of complaints about "too much spacing between
lines" just as we now see complaints about "too large (default) font
size".

And authors should consider setting the line-height value, if they set
font-family. For some fonts, you might decide to let browser defaults
stand; but for most fonts, you should probably use something between
1.25 and 1.35.

(On the theoretical side, we might note that font designs are more less
bound to result in some glyphs that extend above or below the horizontal
borders defined by the font size. In Unicode, diacritic marks can be
combined at will, and they virtually need to be stacked upon each other
then.)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

Re: serif and sans-serif fonts listing?

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 08:12:03 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy .com> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Maybe they just made a typo ;-)[/color]
>>
>> Nope; line-height: 1.12; is a rather well thought out property value.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>It's always nice to believe the best possible about other people's
>actions and their thoughtfulness. ..[/color]

The first time I got aware of just this factor of 1.12 was from
something Liam Quinn said in a private mail conversation several years
back. He mentioned in a byline that MS-Windows had some real quirks
going for it when it came to rendering of True Type fonts.

Which lead me already at that time to do a private investigation of how
Windows handled the 300+ fonts I have on my system.
[color=blue]
>...but I'm afraid you are pushing it too far here. When the number
>1.12 first emerged in this context, it surely wasn't well thought of[/color]

I can agree that it was not "well thought of", but that's not what I
said, my words was "well thought out", which has a slightly different
meaning, don't you think?

[...]
[color=blue]
>I've been puzzled: CSS 1 said 1.1, CSS 2 said/says 1.33, one CSS 2.1
>draft said 1.12em and the current draft says 1.12. And they say that all
>these are "based on extensive research into current UA practice" as well
>as non-normatively recommended for use in browsers by default.[/color]

It does not matter which Win application you want to look at. As long as
you have _any_ application for that OP-system that makes use of its
internal font rendering mechanisms, you will find that the equivalence
of 'line-height: 1.12' is a required setting in that application in
order to produce a close visual result of a zero-leaded typesetting.
[color=blue]
>As far as I can see, none of the values is what populars browsers do
>(which is about 1.2 or somewhat more), and none of them is suitable
>for a typical browsing situation.[/color]

Agreed; but to me this is actually a good thing as it (sort of) points
out that a suggested value for 'line-height' is a required component of
an author style sheet, along the lines of "Braden's Mantra" (if you
remember that one :-).
[color=blue][color=green]
>> As it happens this is the value you need in Windows to create the
>> "looks" of what really should have been 'line-height: 1;' as per CSS
>> definitions.[/color]
>
>This is debatable, but assuming you're right...[/color]

Empirically proven over here using my 300+ fonts, out of which I can say
that a good 100+ fonts are possible to use for typesetting of standard
text, and the 1.12 holds true for that 100+ set.

The other some 200 fonts I have are all of the "artistic design" type
that needs special attention any way.
[color=blue]
>...it means that the value is surely wrong.[/color]

Any "default" value for 'line-height' will be wrong and that's why I
think that an initial value that gives "zero leading" as its visual
result in the most used OP-system is a good starting point.
[color=blue]
>A line height of 1 is hardly suitable - especially as an
>overall default! It leaves no space between lines of text.[/color]

Well, on the contrary, it does if you look at Anglo-Saxon based text
only. Now what language/alphabet is in majority on the web?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Do some experiments with a big fixed font size...
>> ...you need to set the line height in MS-word to...
>> 72 * 1.12 = 81 points[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Why MS Word? We can test it using Web browsers.[/color]

You can use any Win based application that relies on Win font rendering
algorithms. I use MS-Word to test Windows font specifics because it has
more easy to access settings, as compared to any browser out there.

Never the less you will find the same result from comparable tests.
[color=blue]
>Especially because then we see the effect of actual browser
>defaults. They prevent the clipping _and_ they leave at least
>some space between the diacritic and the descender.[/color]

But there is the stupidity, 'line-height: 1' _should_not_ result in any
"clipping" but it does on Win based systems, and it has always been like
that since day one of "True Type" in Windows.

[...]
[color=blue]
>And authors should consider setting the line-height value, if they set
>font-family.[/color]

Absolutely, 'line-height' is one of the important properties to adjust
in order to suggest a correct "black/white" balance in rendered text.
[color=blue]
>(...In Unicode, diacritic marks can be combined at will,
> and they virtually need to be stacked upon each other then.)[/color]

Well, Claude Garamond did not have access to Unicode but he could set
just any one of the glyphs he designed, with zero leading (i.e. using
'line-height: 1') in a print frame, without the risk of "clipping" :-)

--
Rex

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: serif and sans-serif fonts listing?

Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy .com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I can agree that it was not "well thought of", but that's not what I
> said, my words was "well thought out", which has a slightly different
> meaning, don't you think?[/color]

I guess so. English preposition always make me dizzy, and I miss finer
points, and sometimes the whole point too.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>As far as I can see, none of the values is what populars browsers do
>>(which is about 1.2 or somewhat more), and none of them is suitable
>>for a typical browsing situation.[/color]
>
> Agreed; but to me this is actually a good thing as it (sort of)
> points out that a suggested value for 'line-height' is a required
> component of an author style sheet, along the lines of "Braden's
> Mantra" (if you remember that one :-).[/color]

Along such lines, browsers' default style sheets should be much more
horrendous than they are, e.g. setting fancy fonts, making headings
smaller than copy texts... oops, got too close to reality here. :-)

I don't really agree. Besides, my point is that what the CSS
specifications and drafts present as both recommended and current
practice isn't really recommendable or current.
[color=blue]
> Any "default" value for 'line-height' will be wrong[/color]

No, some value might accidentally be good for some particular font and
situation. What's important is to have a default that is tolerable in
many situations, and 1.2 is much better for that than 1.12, though
somewhat larger than 1.2 would be even better.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>A line height of 1 is hardly suitable - especially as an overall
>>default! It leaves no space between lines of text.[/color]
>
> Well, on the contrary, it does if you look at Anglo-Saxon based text
> only.[/color]

We seem to look at different things. If you look at text containing
letters like x and o only, then there's surely vertical spacing between
the letters, but that's not what spacing between lines of text normally
means. Even English uses letters with ascenders and descenders, and for
line-height: 1, they tend to touch each other, or almost touch, depending
on font design.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Why MS Word? We can test it using Web browsers.[/color]
>
> You can use any Win based application that relies on Win font
> rendering algorithms. I use MS-Word to test Windows font specifics
> because it has more easy to access settings, as compared to any
> browser out there.[/color]

Really? I find it much easier to set line-height than to find out where
Word has corresponding settings.
[color=blue]
> But there is the stupidity, 'line-height: 1' _should_not_ result in
> any "clipping" but it does on Win based systems, and it has always
> been like that since day one of "True Type" in Windows.[/color]

It seems that we have just a disagreement on whether implementations of
fonts must use the available vertical space (defined by the font size)
exactly. And this seems to be an old issue, as we can see e.g. from

http://dbaron.org/css/fonts/explanation

[color=blue][color=green]
>>(...In Unicode, diacritic marks can be combined at will, and they
>>virtually need to be stacked upon each other then.)[/color]
>
> Well, Claude Garamond did not have access to Unicode but he could set
> just any one of the glyphs he designed, with zero leading (i.e. using
> 'line-height: 1') in a print frame, without the risk of "clipping"
> :-)[/color]

He had an extremely limited set of characters to be covered, as compared
with Unicode, or even the subset of Unicode that consists of Latin
letters in the broad sense. In particular, no combinations of two (or
more) diacritics on one letter.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/