On 2011-06-13 at 08:34:15 -0500, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Pander wrote: > > Would it also be possible to generate Bold, Italic, Light and > > Condensed versions for OCR-A and OCR-B? In that way it is also > > backwards compatible with the current OCRA fonts. > > Someone could no doubt design bold, italic, light, and condensed > fonts that visually resembled OCR-A and OCR-B, but I think it would > be irresponsible to call such fonts OCR-A and OCR-B. Bear in mind > that OCR-A and OCR-B exist for the specific purpose of automated > character recognition. They are written up in standards documents, > and hardware and software are designed specifically to handle not > only those letter shapes, but also specific sizes, spacing, and so > on. If we start extending the standard in non-standard ways to > include extra glyphs, extra styles, and so on, then the result will > no longer be within the specifications of the systems that are > designed to use these fonts. Condensed would be especially likely > to be a problem. Maybe for graphic design reasons it would be > desirable to have fonts for human-only consumption that look "like > OCR fonts, but different"; but those will no longer be OCR fonts > and I'd prefer to avoid confusion as much as possible.
What you say is exactly what I think. I'd like to see your fonts on CTAN. Nice that you already provide OTF. Regards, Reinhard -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reinhard Kotucha Phone: +49-511-3373112 Marschnerstr. 25 D-30167 Hannover mailto:reinhard.kotu...@web.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
