> From: theiling@... [mailto:theiling@...]


> > > Nevertheless, the apparent scarcity of Metafonts might suggest

that

> > type
> > > designers are not flocking to use it to design fonts. Of course,

that

> > > might simply be because a significant amount of effort is needed

to

> > learn
> > > it.


> > But there's another relevant factor which I mentioned earlier
> > but you failed to consider: Metafont fonts can be used with one

niche

> > product, whereas fonts that use TrueType or Postscript outline

formats

> > can be used with a wide variety of products on most platforms.

There's

> > also a matter of tools: lots of tools exist for working with SFNT

font

> > files, far more than for Metafont.
>
> By this argument, you could terminate any discussion about any tool
> that is not widely used. Rephrased, you say: it's not the industrial
> standard, so it's bad.

I did not say it's bad, and made it a point not to do so. Nicholas
suggested that font developers don't flock to Metafont because it's hard
to learn. I simply pointed out that another possible explanation is that
the format has a limited market.

> That's not what is interesting. Therefore
> your argument was not considered.

You disregard my argumentation, yet your own argumentation is based on a
premise (that I said the format is bad) for which there was no evidence
and which is indeed contrafactual. I think I'll be my own judge, thank
you.

> The question is whether Metafont
> fulfils the needs of font designers regardless of what they are using
> now.

If that is the question, then the answer is clearly, "No, unless you're
developing fonts for use with TeX."



Peter Constable