Re: Feta font modifications by Janek

[Werner LEMBERG]

> I omitted to mention that OpenType does not support the
> parameterization concept of MM, and so OT is not an evolution of MM.

This is not correct.  Earlier versions of the OpenType specification
*did* support MM, but since Adobe stopped using them, those tables
were removed from the OT specs too.

> This is generally because MM was seen by typographers as not being
> excellent in terms of the art of type design, with all sorts of
> distorted faces being possible.  It's related to the way in which
> type designers cut italics specially, and do not simply slant roman
> faces to make oblique forms.  I think that's the main reason why it
> died out.

I think you are mixing up `slanting' and `italic'.  Italic glyphs are
a completely different *design* and thus beyond what MM was developed
for.

The main problem was rather that the MM technology appeared about 10
years too early, and no adequate font designer support was available.
Compare this to well hinted TrueType fonts: Only with the release of
the Visual TrueType editor, about 10 years after the invention of
TrueType, font designers (or rather well-paid font hinters) were
actually capable of hinting glyphs by themselves efficiently, more or
less.


    Werner