From: Kent Lew
> I'm pretty sure the thorns were compensation
> for a *light* effect, not an ink effect.
That's why I put "ink" in quotes.
But I should have just used "light".
From: Jean-Francois Porchez
> And work more than discuss all the time same subjects.
Hey man, I've cut back a lot - gimme a break! :-)
From: Gunnar Swanson
> Ink traps work for one method of reproduction
> on one substrate at one size.
Well, I wouldn't say it's *that* narrow. They apply
wherever there's an appreciable ink gain, no matter
what combination of things get you there. It's just
the size of the traps that needs to be estimated,
and with an independent MM axis, you're set.
> I doubt the application of overt ink traps will become
> common except in specialty faces or as an affectation.
But many of the better text fonts do have them. Take a close
look at the FontFont library, for one. On the other hand, there
are many fonts I admire (like most of JF's) that don't have traps,
but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be even better with them.
Like anything else, it's a matter of efficiency: if traps
can be implemented quickly enough* (whatever that means in a
given context), then they're worth it, at least in a text face.
The problem with traps is that it's arduous work implementing
them consistently... unless you have a method! :-)
* My Trapping Flower thing might end up as a script in
FontLab, which means you could trap an entire font in
a second or so! You still need to know/determine the
parameters of the given Flower, but all the menial
work would totally disappear.