← Back to context Comment by rhdunn 4 days ago The text doesn't use an `f`. If you copy from e.g. the 1700 passage you get `ſ` not `f`. 4 comments rhdunn Reply poly2it 4 days ago Probably people are confused by ligatures. Indeed it is a long S. KPGv2 4 days ago This is correct. And if you don't like that font's long-s, you can fix it withdocument.body.style.fontFamily = "Baskerville";Baskerville has a nice long-s. TNR is also not bad. Garamond is passable. bryanrasmussen 4 days ago thanks for the Baskerville recommendation.on edit: liked the Garamond better, since the font is a bit thicker, checked it on "ſpake" and was obviously a long S whereas on the thinner Baskerville still looked like an f to me. Although the original text was perhaps too thick for me. bryanrasmussen 4 days ago hmm you're right, I guess my eyesight is worse than I thought
KPGv2 4 days ago This is correct. And if you don't like that font's long-s, you can fix it withdocument.body.style.fontFamily = "Baskerville";Baskerville has a nice long-s. TNR is also not bad. Garamond is passable. bryanrasmussen 4 days ago thanks for the Baskerville recommendation.on edit: liked the Garamond better, since the font is a bit thicker, checked it on "ſpake" and was obviously a long S whereas on the thinner Baskerville still looked like an f to me. Although the original text was perhaps too thick for me.
bryanrasmussen 4 days ago thanks for the Baskerville recommendation.on edit: liked the Garamond better, since the font is a bit thicker, checked it on "ſpake" and was obviously a long S whereas on the thinner Baskerville still looked like an f to me. Although the original text was perhaps too thick for me.
Probably people are confused by ligatures. Indeed it is a long S.
This is correct. And if you don't like that font's long-s, you can fix it with
document.body.style.fontFamily = "Baskerville";
Baskerville has a nice long-s. TNR is also not bad. Garamond is passable.
thanks for the Baskerville recommendation.
on edit: liked the Garamond better, since the font is a bit thicker, checked it on "ſpake" and was obviously a long S whereas on the thinner Baskerville still looked like an f to me. Although the original text was perhaps too thick for me.
hmm you're right, I guess my eyesight is worse than I thought