[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ft-devel] too many old DynaLab fonts in tricky list?

From: suzuki toshiya
Subject: [ft-devel] too many old DynaLab fonts in tricky list?
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 16:42:17 +0900
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird (X11/20100329)

Hi all,

As I've reported in my previous post, DynaLab's early
implementation for "Heisei" family (*) were tricky.
(DFHSGothic might be an abbreviation of "Dyna(lab) Font
Hei Sei Gothic).

(*) "Heisei" family would be the first consortium-
based type design, which was implemented by various
vendors and in various formats like; Adobe, Ricoh,
Ryobi, TypeBank, Canon, NIS, etc etc.

Although concrete examples in my hand are only 3:
DFHSGothic-W5, DFHSMincho-W3, DFHSMincho-W7, I guess
all of DFHS{Gothic,Mincho}-W{3,5,7,9} in same version
would have once been tricky. Should we add all of them
into tricky font list?

I think the checksums should be listed, but I'm questionable
whether the family names should be listed, because
DynaLab's implementations are not tricky since 1996.

Considering that DynaLab might have changed their
policy around 1995-1996 for most products shipped
by themselves, it could be an option that search
"DynaLab" plus "1992-1995" as the indicator of tricky
fonts. In the case that family name testing is useful,
name table is expected to be retained even if it is

Such vendor & time checking is too complicated to
reduce the step-by-step improvement of the tricky font
name list? Please give me your comment.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]