Thank you everyone, I think I've got things organized now. I found another folder that is titled DIN FF (looks like an old school icon).
But I have one more question... The names. The last guy who was here apparently passed these through software to convert them to OpenType TT fonts. It added hyphens in the filename as well the actual font data name (whatever that's called).
In the past, I've experienced issues of "missing fonts" on other computers because someone along the line had altered font names from the standard.
Can someone who has these please assist me with the correct naming convention for these? Am I being too anal? The first set of 5 are "grouped as DIN while the rest are all individual. How should they be grouped? Should I just buy the whole set over again, my God what a mess...
Here's what I have to work with:
That makes 15 fonts I’d say. Nothing is really missing although you also might want to have the 5 weights of [[http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FF_DIN|FF DIN]] Condensed italic, as well as the 5 weights of [[http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FF_DIN|FF DIN]] Round which were added in 2009 and 2010 respectively. Provided that the software you are working with supports stylistic alternates (like InDesign, Illustrator etc.) one could consider to buy the OpenType versions to have automatic access to all alternates simultaneously as well as all four sets of figures.
Advice on how to name the fonts is an expert issue. What you need basically depends on how the font software you are using supports the input of names into the OpenType format, what names (and/or styles) your applications support and how you would like to handle italic, bold and bold italic (basically through style buttons or through the menu together with the other weights). The OpenType format allows an additional level of grouping weights into font families. FontFont TrueType.ttf and OpenType.otf behave differently when it comes to names and styles.
Three points of concern:
– I am not shure wether your license allows you to convert these fonts into another format.
– Your way of renaming the fonts might be incompatible with later additions such as condensed italic weights or future additions to the family.
– Font conversion may have resulted in corrupt data (name tables, missing kerning pairs, characters with corrupted or missing encoding.
FF DIN vs DIN Next / Garamond vs ITC Garamond / etc.
I support Erik’s view on DIN Next. DIN Next is to DIN what ITC Garamond is to the original typefaces by Garamond. Rather soft, round, not really faithful to the original. To take this a little further: PF DIN is to DIN what Monotype Garamond is to the original typefaces by Garamond. As if seen through someone else’s glasses (mine/Jean Jannon’s), many funny details that have nothing to do with the original as well as a missing design for – resp. a strange view on – what is needed for smaller sizes.
to Nick (DIN for engraving)
Alphabets for engraving have been a substantial part of the DIN 1451 standard from the very beginning. It seems that comittee originally intended to create one design which could then be executed in different media. Probably due to having to live with what was already available (the Prussian Railways typeface and various typefaces for engraving machines) this goal was never really achieved. On the other hand, it is likely that DIN Mittelschrift (for which it seems that there was no Prussian Railway template was available) has been based on the Normograph lettering style by Georg Bahr (not to be confused with the architect with the same name). Read [[http://issuu.com/fontfont/docs/ff_din_round|FF DIN Round – digital block letters]] for more information on this subject.
The Isonorm 3069 typeface has been designed in such a way that it could easily be made fit for single-line engraving (hence the rounded stroke ends). The design of Isonorm 3096 has nothing to with the typefaces of DIN 1451 though.
DIN Schriften typeface package
The typeface package by Linotype / Adobe not only contains DIN Engschrift and DIN Mittelschrift, which more or less resemble the version of DIN 1451-2 from 1980 (including the wrong interpretation of lowercase of DIN Engschrift which has the bowl of the a starting with a curve, which is a clear mistake). The other two typefaces in that package are DIN Neuzeit Grotesk light and DIN Neuzeit Grotesk bold condensed. These are adaptations of Neuzeit Grotesk which were proposed as a model for lettering on industrial products through DIN 30640. It is likely that Siemens has been behind this because they have been using Neuzeit Grotesk in their corporate design from the 1930ties until the 1970ties. DIN 30640 has been withdrawn because it lacked acceptance within the industry.
Licensing DIN 1451?
The [[http://www.din.de|DIN institute]] does not act like a type foundry that sells fonts or licenses designs. When it comes to DIN 1451 they only sell the standard sheets. As a result, manufacturers such as Berthold, Bitstream, Linotype, Adobe and URW as well as many suppliers of foil-cutting, embossing and engraving machines (used to) produce their own drawings, templates, stencils and digital data. Seen in this perspective, no typefoundry or manufacturer ever licensed the ‘original’ DIN typeface. It is the various versions designed / produced / marketed by the various designers / manufacturers / foundries which may each be subject to copyright / trade mark laws and other legal issues.
@alockbox: Do you still plan on making it open-source?