To the Editor — The concept of font was not something that required consideration in the earliest alchemical manuscripts, as these were handwritten. A certain Herr Gutenberg, however, paved the way for the development of fonts, and we are now awash with them.

Sadly, more and more journals are now choosing to utilize sans serif fonts. Because the most important purpose of writing is clear and unambiguous communication, I have some reservations regarding this. And the reasons for my disapproval can be found on the Periodic Table. Looking at all 118 elemental symbols, there are some where the distinction between their representations in serif and sans serif fonts is crucial; these are Al, Cl, In, I, Ir, Tl, and Fl. For example, Fig. 1c depicts the chemical formula of aluminium iodide in Times New Roman and Arial fonts; the former shows an obvious difference between the ‘l’ of Al and the ‘I’ of I, thanks to their respective distinguishing serifs, but the latter does not — the ‘l’ and ‘I’ now appear essentially identical, save for a tiny difference in widths.

致编辑——在最早的炼金术手稿中，字体的概念并不需要考虑，因为这些手稿是手写的。然而，古腾堡先生为字体的发展铺平了道路，现在我们已经被字体淹没了。

遗憾的是，现在越来越多的期刊选择使用无衬线字体。因为写作最重要的目的是清晰明确的沟通，所以我对此持保留态度。我不赞成的原因可以在元素周期表上找到。纵观所有 118 个元素符号，有一些元素在衬线字体和无衬线字体中的表示之间的区别至关重要；它们是 Al、Cl、In、I、Ir、Tl 和 Fl。例如，图1c以Times New Roman和Arial字体描绘了碘化铝的化学式；前者显示出 Al 的“l”和 I 的“I”之间存在明显差异，这要归功于它们各自不同的衬线，但后者则不然——“l”和“I”现在看起来基本相同，除了一个宽度的微小差异。