(I assumed the Reply-to: would be the list) On 24/10/05, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any typographical reason why you might want slanted instead of > italic or vice-versa? In the original edition describing TeX Knuth is very very strident about the need for slanted fonts, the wave of the future. To be honest, slanted appears to be a very good way to differentiate input/output in the typography of human-computer interaction. Reading early published versions of Knuth makes the typographic rationale behind slanted clear. Knuth also argues in METAFONT that slanted will make it easier for typeface designers to produce multiple faces from a single style. Slanted also just feels forcefully, brutally, ultramodern, like Bauhaus typefaces or London Underground. I expect to see early Soviet era designers appear from a montage, shouting in slanted slogans of better typography through science. If you want your readers to expect the avantegarde of suprematism and constructivism to burst out of your text, set in slanted. Slanted is not very good at replacing the humanities uses of italics (/Title/, /mild emphasis/, /foreign words in body text/, etc). In humanities texts slanted breaks rules regarding reader familiarity with typesetting styles, it also breaks the aesthetic beauty of well set type. So if we go to the heart of Knuth's initial research/engineering problem (beautiful typography), then the Slanted type he pushes so hard in the late 1970s, at least in humanities, works against him. Personally, I find that there's a great deal of beauty in well designed Italic faces. At the level of readability, I also find the difference in the format of characters (a, g, etc) provided by italic, acts as an extra cue for me that the text has a different meaning (other than just the slant). yours, Sam R. -- I will give you Tacos, such Tacos as you have never seen. -- I will give you Tacos, such Tacos as you have never seen.
