I will just say that most people think of is fonts. So good to use right terms, but also important to consider commaner. Jon Phillips +1.415.830.3884 (global) +86.132.6817.8381 (beijing) <a href="mailto:jon@rejon.org">jon@rejon.org</a> <blockquote>On May 12, 2009 5:27 PM, "Ben Weiner" <<a href="mailto:ben@readingtype.org.uk">ben@readingtype.org.uk</a>> wrote: Hi Dave Crossland wrote: > > At the LGM2009 Nicolas and I had some discussions about the OFLB > termi... I agree with the foregoing, but here is an explanation. Believe it or not, the use of 'Typeface' was very carefully considered, at least when we were thinking about the style and editorial tone of the OFLB. I think we largely succeeded in carrying our decisions through to the site pages and the new wiki docs. 'Typeface' refers to all the members of a visually related font family, so the ccHost 'upload' page became a 'Typeface record' because users are encouraged to produce multiple weights - a family, in other words - and upload them to the same typeface record. Typically the members of the family (each of which would traditionally have been called a 'fount' or 'font') are regular/Roman, bold, italic, etc. There could be different scripts in the family too; as long as they share a common visual style, and by implication a common origin. When we talk about 'fonts' on OFLB we should be referring to the files in which the typeface family members are encoded. Font files can now contain any number of typeface family members, so perhaps these multi-member files should be called 'typeface files' instead. Cheers, Ben -- Ben Weiner | <a href="http://readingtype.org.uk/about/contact.html" target="_blank">http://readingtype.org.uk/about/contact.html</a> </blockquote>