On Nov 8, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Michael Brady wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Mark Simonson wrote:
>> Sorry to rain on your parade, but ITC Avant Garde Pro is
>> unfortunately modeled after the Adobe "standard" for backward
> > drip < > drip < > drip <
> Thank you. Sic transit la vie.
> But nonetheless, I do like the fuller range of ligatures, etc. I
> have to say, AG was one of the fonts that I found to be most
> visibily ill-conceived or ill-treated when it was digitized. I
> think I used it about four or five times--no, make that two or
> three--from 1989 until now because of it's poor look in DTP.
> BTW, what do you mean by "backward compatibility" in this context?
I guess I'm inferring "backward compatibility" from what Norbert
posted on Typophile after his talk with Alan Haley:
"Allan said that Monotype Imaging had discussed the oblique versions
for a long time, and in the end, it came down to two main
"1- They felt that the Adobe versions of AGG Oblique had become the
de facto standard, thus the Pro version would be consistent; and
"2- Developmental expenses."
I think it's great that they did it, taking advantage of OpenType,
etc., but it could have been so much better. Instead, they just made
the existing version more complete and up-to-date technologically. It
seems like a missed opportunity to do the definitive version, more
true to the original.