TF and Type1

What's the difference between type1, and TF (in fonts)?

I think you mean "TT" (short for TrueType) not "TF".

Have a read (µ23's way of offering too much information):
http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/ttvst1.htm
http://nwalsh.com/comp.fonts/FAQ/index.html

... wow.
That'd take me forever to read through. Here's what a I think I know:
type1 = vector
"TT" = raster

Originally posted by Yacovitch
... wow.
That'd take me forever to read through. Here's what a I think I know:
type1 = vector
"TT" = raster

Do you want to learn, or do you want to complain about doing some reading?

Because without doing that, you won't know WHY it is you're wrong about what you think you know regarding TT and Type1 font characteristics.

You can follow through with where I have pointed you, or you can remain blissfully ill-informed. The choice is yours.

:rolleyes: No need to be an ass.
I'll read them, and I will learn what the difference is. I will then proceed to not use all the extra knowledge that I will acquire, and answer newbie questions directly.

If you equate frank advice with someone being an ass, you have some skin-thickening to work on.

You're an ass for guilting me into sitting here at my desk with a goddamn dictionary trying to figure out what the hell all this means word for word.

Can you honestly expect someone of my caliber to understand lines like:

Conversions between the two formats are typically imperfect: although mathematically speaking the quadratic B-splines of TrueType are a subset of the cubic Bézier curves of PostScript, there are usually small rounding errors no matter which direction one converts fonts blahblahblah

when I don't even know the difference between truetype and postscript?

If someone asked me how humans first got to the moon, I'd tell them they were shot up in a fancy missle... I fear the day someone asks you the same thing.

No one ever promised anyone that learning new technological info was going to be a walk in the park. It's not my job—nor anyone else's who visits here—to teach someone how to learn. If it requires sitting with a dictionary by your side—fine. If it requires some additional Googling—fine. If you truly want to learn, you do what you must, and you find a way that works for you. You can't expect to have everything prechewed for your simple consumption; that's arrogant and lazy.

I don't understand every word of the explanation either, but, as you can see, your question is not one that can be fully answered in a couple sentences. And who better to answer your question than the man (Tom Phinney) who presently heads up Adobe's Type division? If you have a need to know, perhaps you'll be self-motivated enough to look for an informational resource that is more suited to your needs. Or perhaps someone else will wander by this thread and prechew the info for you.

*chews on some text and regurgitates it back out* BlargH! It says Utopian's right.

Quite frankly, the first one's an easy read, the second one may be a bit tedious but it's far from long.

Originally posted by Yacovitch
If someone asked me how humans first got to the moon, I'd tell them they were shot up in a fancy missle... I fear the day someone asks you the same thing.

I wouldn't fear that. If we ask you, we get "they were shot up in a fancy missle", with µ23 we'd get information that would lead you from the preparation, the launch, the moon landing and any other tidbit of information you might want to know.

You asked a question, he provided you with answers (and trust me, he has them). They don't make books with pictures for everything. He wouldn't offer you information without thinking you could learn from it. It just seems alot of the people he offers help and information to don't want to take the extra step and learn.