[XeTeX] [OT] Free fonts for fontspec examples?

[William Adams]

On Jul 14, 2010, at 8:44 AM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:

> I agree with all except (possibly) the last part : what exactly
> do you mean by "reflect modern sensibilities" ?  Would you advocate
> changing the wording of a reproduction of a historical document
> solely because its original wording might these days be found
> offensive by some ?  Thomas Bowdler might rejoice, but speaking
> personally I would value historical accuracy over political
> correctness any day of the week.

I agree w/ you, it was more a comment on what some other people do / want to do.

On Jul 14, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote:

> On 14 Jul 2010, at 13:24, William Adams wrote:
>> 
>> (whose wife purchased a reproduction of The Declaration of Independence for him as a Christmas gift last year:
>> http://mbelloff.tripod.com/goddardbroadside.html
>> --- we got the first edition w/ the original wording, but there's a new one w/ updated, more inclusive wording)
> 
> I can understand the desire to print a reproduction of such a document, using typography (and sometimes even technology) that is appropriate to its period.

Yeah, one thing which I always found bizarre were the reproductions of Kelmscott Press books which were printed offset --- it's just not possible to fully appreciate the work w/o the wonderful impression and the _incredibly_ black ink of the original.

> But am I alone in feeling that a "reproduction" with "updated wording" is an oxymoron?! If you change the wording, it is no longer a reproduction of the Declaration; it is a modern document purporting to express the intent of the 18th-century Declaration in 21st-century terms. As such, trying to make it LOOK like an 18th-century document is anachronistic and misleading.

Yeah, I thought it was weird too --- when the printer first announced the project, I got the impression that she was considering doing only the updated wording version and was quite relieved when she announced there would be two (I got the original).

> (who would be appalled if his reproduction Gutenberg Bible page from the museum in Mainz had "updated, more inclusive wording" than the version Gutenberg himself printed)

Me too. I was rather surprised that the updated text version had a larger edition than the other.

On the gripping hand, one could argue that it's simply a matter of making the text editorially consistent w/ the Constitution (``We the people...'' and all that). One can also see the utility of it for classroom usage w/ younger students so that one can introduce the text w/o having to explain 18th century sexism.

Now I need to keep my eye out for an historically accurate reproduction of The Magna Carta....

William

-- 
William Adams
senior graphic designer
Fry Communications
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.