Talk:Bitstream Charter
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Deleted link to online business.[edit]
This is an encyclopedia; it is not an advertising board. Let's not reduce it to such. Users, please delete advertisement links as they appear. Thank you.
- It's not an advertisement; it's a link to Bitstream's page for their Chatter font. You know, the subject of this article. And, yes, we also have a link to Charis SIL for people who want the free font. Samboy (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Slab-Serif[edit]
This font is hard to categorize - but it is certainly not glyphic/incised as indicated in the first seven years of this article's life. I can find online references documenting/arguing that it is/is not slab-serif. I am persuaded to classify it as a slab because 1) the serifs are square/unbracketed; 2) the ratio of the serif thickness to stroke thickness is comparable to Clarendon (which defines a Slab sub-family in some classification schemes); and 3) LaTeX font guru Michael Sharpe calls it a slab-serif [1]. I understand why others may class it as transitional and dual-classification seems appropriate (Thanks Blythwood). Cpoakes (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your description of your reasoning! As a font designed for a specific technology, I feel it's hard to put this in any one box: Carter was constrained as to how he could create his design in ways font designers normally aren't. I think the model seems to be transitionals rather than slabs (it's a text face and Clarendon mostly isn't), but the slabs are deep enough that saying it's a slab serif makes a lot of sense to me. In any case, I think the model is 20th century 'transitional' designs like Times more than period ones like Baskerville, making it even harder! Blythwood (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- This was bugging me. I saw a reference on Luc Devroye's site equating Bitstream Charter with alternate name Transitional 801.[2] A little digging around in the postscript font metric files (AFM) revealed the same name/classification. The article was rewritten to express this as the primary classification.Cpoakes (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)