![]() You say that the latter means that it is "unable to be defined without reference to the original" but then logically isn't that also the case for the former: eg, feet must always refer back to the King's foot (or whatever was first used)? Once a measure is defined, whether based on a physical object or a existing measure, it becomes valid and exists independent of its origin.īesides which, defining a pica as being 1/83 of 35cm simply means it's 1/83 of 35/100 of 1/10,000,000 of a quadrant of the earth. I just don't see the essential difference between basing a measurement system on something from the phsyical world and basing it on another measurement system. And it certainly doesn't make it a "subset" of the other measure. You can easily define a new measure in terms an existing measure, and this doesn't for evermore tie it to that existing measure, any more than inches are for evermore tied to barley grains. Why could a measure not be based "on a conversion from an existing measurement system"? What's the difference between saying there are 83pc to 35cm and a foot is "the length of the king's foot"? Must every measure be taken from something that is not originally a measure? So a centimetre must be defined not as 1/100 of a metre but as the length of a barley corn or what have you? If the original point was defined as 1/72 of an inch, then why did Didot's proposal to define it later as 1/72 of a French inch solve the inconsistent ruler problem? Are we to assume that there was an absolute French inch that all printers had access to and that never changed whereas the only copy anyone had of the original inch was a weatherbeaten printed scale? Or maybe they'd just invented weatherproof rulers by then! François Didot proposed a solution by defining a point as exactly 1/72 of a French inch." Since the ruler was used as a reference, printers and font makers suffered from inconsistent tools and measures. Depending on the weather, the printed scale changed in size. "Simon Fournier proposed a system of 72 points per inch. I don't understand the first part, though: Escpecially in the time, when computers can do layout of the page and convert if neccecary? I guess the discossion about what units to use is endless, everybody had it's own favorite. i even never heard of them, hihihi.īut as i read above, converting points and inches to picas is quite simple, so it should be the units to use if you want to be able to exchange your document with others? ![]() I never got hold of those strange Inches and Picas? Wow. That's pretty logical i think, becuase, when working on a screen, you think in points.īut after a while i changed to centimeters, becuase layout will be easier to understand. When i first used InDesign i thought let's use Points. I never used Indesign before and now i have to learn to script to it. I'm a student in my third year of a total of 4 and now i'm working for half a year on this assignment (a stage we call it, don't know the english word) at some compagny. Let's join this discussion, can't be bad :) ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |