While I can appreciate the parent commenter's criticism, I think the author tried to head it off with this concession of their chosen naming convention:
> In the end, I’m sticking with Gorton for the whole branch since that feels the most well-known name, but I feel ill-equipped to make that call for everyone. You might choose to call it Gorton, Leroy, TT&H, Taylor-Hobson, or one of the many other names. (Just, ideally, not Linetica.)
Since the author was concentrated on the particular letterforms that seemed more consistent in the lineage observed, the usage makes sense. But that naming, even with the acknowledgement that it likely comes from the standards of drafting of the day:
> I don’t know how this first proto-Gorton was designed – unfortunately, Taylor, Taylor & Hobson’s history seems sparse and despite personal travels to U.K. archives, I haven’t found anything interesting – but I know simple technical writing standards existed already, and likely influenced the appearance of the newfangled routing font.
> This was perhaps the first modern pantograph engraver, and perhaps even the arrival of a concept of an engraving font – the first time technical writing was able to be replicated consistently via the aid of the machine.
But it also seems a reasonable critique of the article that it's mislabeling to call the MIL-SPEC-33558 and ANSI Y14.2M or even the WWII equipment lettering "Gorton" simply by visual similarity without evidence to show ancestry to the specific engraving machines, dies, or letter sets of Gorton/TTH/etc. And that is also done throughout both with direct evidence and without.
> In the end, I’m sticking with Gorton for the whole branch since that feels the most well-known name, but I feel ill-equipped to make that call for everyone. You might choose to call it Gorton, Leroy, TT&H, Taylor-Hobson, or one of the many other names. (Just, ideally, not Linetica.)
Since the author was concentrated on the particular letterforms that seemed more consistent in the lineage observed, the usage makes sense. But that naming, even with the acknowledgement that it likely comes from the standards of drafting of the day:
> I don’t know how this first proto-Gorton was designed – unfortunately, Taylor, Taylor & Hobson’s history seems sparse and despite personal travels to U.K. archives, I haven’t found anything interesting – but I know simple technical writing standards existed already, and likely influenced the appearance of the newfangled routing font.
> This was perhaps the first modern pantograph engraver, and perhaps even the arrival of a concept of an engraving font – the first time technical writing was able to be replicated consistently via the aid of the machine.
But it also seems a reasonable critique of the article that it's mislabeling to call the MIL-SPEC-33558 and ANSI Y14.2M or even the WWII equipment lettering "Gorton" simply by visual similarity without evidence to show ancestry to the specific engraving machines, dies, or letter sets of Gorton/TTH/etc. And that is also done throughout both with direct evidence and without.