Talk:Everson Mono

Suggestion to delete because "Wikipedia is not a font catalogue"

(To Nagle) please cite the exact source reference (sentence, paragraph) which is used to post/reach a opinion/suggestion/decision like ... Wikipedia is not a font catalog ?? How can less than 25 fonts out of hundreds of unicode fonts, makes wikipedia a font catalog ??!??!?? Please explain. Thanks. ~Tarikash 06:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

This article is only showing very basic info on this unicode font. Doesn't even include a picture. Please see few other unicode fonts ... Arial, Arial Unicode MS, Bitstream Cyberbit, Cardo (font), Caslon, Code2000, Charis SIL, Chrysanthi Unicode (Chryſanþi), ClearlyU, DejaVu fonts, Doulos SIL, Everson Mono Unicode, Gentium, GNU Unifont, Junicode, Lucida Sans Unicode, New Gulim, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Y.OzFontN. Some of them are showing more, and some of them are showing less information. If this article is to be deleted then same logic applies with all the other unicode fonts or other fonts, as well. In my opinion, all these font article needs to be here, so that, more & other wikipedians can contribute to improve it with more info, on their own free time. Time limitation you(Nagle) have mentioned for deletion, is absolutely absurd, because, no one knows or can predict or can force someone, when someone will have enough free time to improve these article. Without a consensus, or, without finding a real violation/fault, etc, deletion of any font related article will be absolutely not a wise thing to do. ~ Tarikash 06:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

I'm pleased to see that someone decided to put an article up about this; I had some discussion with Nagle at the Village Pump where I suggested that there were a number of other font articles so the addition of this article is hardly a new sin. He indicated that if we improve the article it and if I put up some pictures he won't object, so let's do that. Evertype 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ Tarikash 08:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

Improving the article

I suggest that the list of blocks covered be made into some sort of table. I won't start with that; I'll look at other aspects of the article. Evertype 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tried as much possible in free time, in this article Unicode fonts. ~ Tarikash 08:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

Blocks which does not include any characters, can be deleted from the table, if a smaller table is expected. ~ Tarikash 09:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

Created REDIRECT from Everson Mono to this article Everson Mono Unicode. ~ Tarikash 09:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

I think the redirect should have been from this article to Everson Mono actually. But there is no hurry. Evertype 09:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, it's better to do it now. Evertype 09:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to do what you think, is right, justified. Thanks. ~ Tarikash 09:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

Shareware

The text "Everson describes Everson Mono ostensibly as shareware and demands a payment of €25 for a licence to use it on up to three other computers. However, there is technically no barrier to a user downloading and using the font without payment (which must be paid via PayPal or by check) or license." is pretty POV. "Ostensibly"? "Demands"? And then a nice explanation about how to use the software without paying for it. I didn't write this article, and I don't hope that it generates me income, but as I am Everson, it seems to me that I should not edit this paragraph. However, it seems to me that it should be deleted. -- Evertype·✆ 09:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My opinion about this remains unchanged. At the very least "ostensibly" and "demands" are POV. -- Evertype·✆ 08:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that myself and had the same thought... so it's fixed now. When the copyright holder says it's shareware, it is shareware, regardless of whether it's crippled or not. -- Perey (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Evertype·✆ 15:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories

What's with the category deletions? No rationale? -- Evertype·✆ 15:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you were referring to the edit with edit summary "rm from parent cats"? It's cryptic, but it is a rationale. In normal English, it says "remove from parent categories", by which it means "remove this article from categories that are parents of other, more specific categories that it's also in". As the article is in the "Humanist sans-serif typefaces" category, it doesn't also need to be in the "Sans-serif typefaces" category. As such I've re-removed this category just now. The other redundant categories have already been removed by other users. -- Perey (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Italic

There's an italic now. -- Evertype·✆ 20:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember. It resembles this arguing:

Вот где есть ВСЯ кириллица.

Она вроде и в Эверсоне ВСЯ. 213.151.5.102 (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Version 6

Version 6 has many new characters. -- Evertype·✆ 12:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Tengwar

I removed Everson Mono from the list in the Tengwar article of fonts that include the tengwar characters, because the Everson Mono website doesn't list them in the list of supported Unicode blocks. If the font creator can verify this, that would be helpful. If I'm wrong, I invite him to revert my edits. — Eru·tuon 08:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's in the Private Use Area which is why it's not listed in supported Unicode blocks. -- Evertype·✆ 13:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly monospaced, but not purely monospaced

For what it's worth, I thought I'd just note that the spacing of some characters in the TrueType fonts for the Everson Mono typeface break monospace purity; resulting in making it "mostly-monospaced" or "nearly-monospaced". For brevity, I'm limiting observations in this comment to only Everson Mono Regular version 7.001 Beta. However, similar observations hold true for the TrueType font files of the other styles (Bold, Bold Oblique, and Oblique) and the non-beta release version 7.000 font files.

Excluding the 498 zero-width non-printing glyphs, about 98.1% of the glyphs in the TrueType font file of Everson Mono Regular version 7.001 Beta were uniform with the principal majority width. (9083/9258 glyphs were 575/1000 em in width¹.) This leaves about 1.9% (175/9258) glyphs of other widths; of which, there are 37 uniquely different widths. I didn't rigorously check, but there may be some glyphs used for combining characters which may function just fine in adhering to monospace typesetting. But that's beside the point. The point is that there clearly are a notable number of glyphs used for stand-alone characters which break the strict monospace behavior one would expect from a proper monospaced font implementation. If we limit the glyphs to only the widths of 575/1000 em, 1150/1000 em (double-width), and 1725/1000 em (triple-width), we could arguably call it trispace fixed-width font, which is perfectly well and good, but it's not monospace. So, as it stands, to reiterate, both the fonts (the usable implementation) and the typeface (the design, conceptually) are "nearly-monospaced" or "mostly-monospaced", but not pure monospaced.

Some example characters:²

Width Glyphs
400   ᣞᣟ
575   ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ (principal uniform spacing for reference)
587   ꝹꝺꝻꝼꝽꝾꝿꞂꞃꞄꞅꞆꞇ
730   ☰☱☲☳☴☵☶☷⚊⚋⚌⚍⚎⚏
870   ䷀䷁䷂䷃䷄䷅䷆䷇䷈䷉䷊䷋䷌䷍䷎䷏䷐䷑䷒䷓䷔䷕䷖䷗䷘䷙䷚䷛䷜䷝䷞䷟䷠䷡䷢䷣䷤䷥䷦䷧䷨䷩䷪䷫䷬䷭䷮䷯䷰䷱䷲䷳䷴䷵䷶䷷䷸䷹䷺䷻䷼䷽䷾䷿
1150  ⸺⫍⫎𐂂𐂃𐂄𐂅𐂠𐂦𐂭𐂮𐂯𐂰𐂱𐂶𐂽𐂿𐃀𐃄𐃅𐃑𐃖𐃞𐃟𐃠𐃢𐃩𐃪𐃬𐃭𐃮𐃱𐃳𐃵𐃶𐃹
1725  𐃆𐃌𐃍𐃎𐃚⸻

¹ The Everson Mono TrueType files use 1000 units per em (upem).

² If you view the example characters using only an Everson Mono font (Regular, Bold, Bold Oblique, or Oblique), you will see characters which are exceptions from monospace purity. Also, all widths are specified in internally relative units of 1/1000 em.

— BrianKrent (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)