Talk:Computer Modern

Misc
The last clause in the first paragraph, "which is unique in the history of font design," is ambiguous. What is unique? As written, it refers to the book series, which I don't think is what it means. Does it mean that no other font has ever been described using source code? If so, starting the sentence with "Unique in the history of font design," would probably be better. Acertain (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Computer Modern. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101005213/http://www.typeculture.com/academic_resource/articles_essays/ to http://www.typeculture.com/academic_resource/articles_essays/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101005213/http://www.typeculture.com/academic_resource/articles_essays/ to http://www.typeculture.com/academic_resource/articles_essays/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect attributions
The following passage

"While it attracted attention for the concept, Metafont has been used by few other font designers; digital font designer Jonathan Hoefler commented that 'Knuth's idea that letters start with skeletal forms is flawed' and Knuth commented 'asking an artist to become enough of a mathematician to understand how to write a font with 60 parameters is too much.'"

implies that Knuth's statement is a direct response to Hoefler's which, if you actually read the sources, is blatantly incorrect. They have nothing to do with each other, Knuth's 'response' having been written 19 years earlier and actually a response to the question:

"Now that PostScript is becoming so widely used, do you think it is a good replacement for METAFONT? I mean, good enough? Right now, we can use TeX and PostScript..."

Oecology (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, that's a fair criticism. I've changed it. Blythwood (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

listing of CMU fonts is outdated
The article doesn't list all the fonts in the current CMU release. Encyclopedant (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's a fair criticism. It doesn't claim to list all of them-from memory I didn't bother adding information on all of them as I didn't have things to say on them. Feel free to add more information if you like. Blythwood (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)