Re: Discussing fonts (was: Quest text font now available)

• Previous message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Still can't work out whats a "canonical decomp" vs a "compatibility decomp""
• In reply to: Pim Blokland: "Discussing fonts (was: Quest text font now available)"
• Next in thread: John Hudson: "Re: Discussing fonts (was: Quest text font now available)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

At 19:42 +0200 2003-05-07, Pim Blokland wrote:
>While I agree that this is not the place to announce the release of
>new fonts (and unfinished at that - William has announced several
>different versions of his font already), and I'm also not overly
>fond of long-windedness, I do wonder about generalized statements
>such as "this is not the place to discuss fonts".

It is not the place to discuss font design.

-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com

• Next message: John Hudson: "Re: Discussing fonts (was: Quest text font now available)"
• Previous message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Still can't work out whats a "canonical decomp" vs a "compatibility decomp""
• In reply to: Pim Blokland: "Discussing fonts (was: Quest text font now available)"
• Next in thread: John Hudson: "Re: Discussing fonts (was: Quest text font now available)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 07 2003 - 15:03:12 EDT