Talk:Computer Modern

Typography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Mid-importance).

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)[reply]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Encyclopedant, 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)[reply]