[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (partial) implementation of Justin Zieglers work
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: (partial) implementation of Justin Zieglers work
- From: Ulrik Vieth <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 18:22:29 +0200
> The mentioned file mathfont.tgz is a snapshot of a work in progress, so
> don't expect too much. I would be particularly interested in comments on
> my try at an `arrowkit', which can be found in the MS2 encoding.
Apart from having a somewhat different opinion on the layout of the
font tables, I have one technical comment:
I noticed that the \amalg symbol (inverted upright \Pi) ended up in
the MSP font table (oct '212). Shouldn't such a glyph live in the
MC font for reasons of design similarity (disrearding the problematic
issue of available slots for a moment). Similary, if there were a
\smallcoprod glyph (identical to \amalg) or a \smallsum or \smallprod
(identical to upright \Pi or \Sigma), shouldn't they also live in the
MC font for the same reasons?
As for the practicality, I'd tend to suggest moving the hebrew
characters elsewhere if a lack of slots arises in the MC font table.
The design similarity argument doesn't seem as convincing in the
case of hebrew compared to inverted greek characters.
P.S. As for the implementation of currently still absent characters
in Matthias' test version, I'd suggest looking into the St. Mary
fonts as a next step. Also perhaps wasy for upright integrals.