Rodolfo Capeto wrote:
> they shape the way digital type looks - I mean, the way they
> look in theory, for another, deeper, constraint is that you're
> working - in general - for a raster output ....
This is a topic that sorely needs attention.
Rodolfo, what would be great is if you could formalize the
train of thought on this topic; maybe write something up?
It's something very difficult to get a good grasp of, and I
myself have failed so far. The thing is, it's fundamentally
relevant to typographic evolution, and if you/we can come
to grips with it (instead of being stuck with the nebulous
feeling that "there's something different" about digital
type design), that would rule.