> | If you take the argument that tabular / aligning figures should be
> | distinguished from proportional / hanging or "oldstyle" figures all
> | the way why not encode all eight kinds of figures available on some
> | hot metal systems?
Jonathan Coxhead wrote:
> I was taught that the difference between lining (this is indeed a
> term in common use to describe them) and non-lining digits was one of
> case. In running text, which would be in lower case, the lower case
> (non-lining) digits should be used; in displays, where a more regular
> form is appropriate, the upper case form is more correct. The lower-
> case digits seem to have fallen into disuse though, and are now called
> "oldstyle."
> But as to whether they should encoded, I neither have nor need an
> opinion. :-)
Yes in "The Elements of Typographic Style," the term *lining* is used
to describe figures which align top and bottom at a certain height
(e.g. cap-height, 3/4 height, sc-height). This is different from
aligning or tabular figures which align in columns.
Figures can of course be both lining and aligning - and this is in fact
the case in the majority of fonts today - but we should not confuse the
two terms.
Some fonts also had both tabular oldstyle figures (aligning) and proportional
oldstyle figures (non-aligning), again in several heights - though since all
"oldstyle" figures are hanging they are all non-lining.
Should be encoded separately from tabular figures exactly which kind of
are meant.
- Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:48 EDT