![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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.
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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.
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)