[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

**To**:*tex-fonts@math.utah.edu, dhdurz1!dcfont-l***Subject**:**Proposed math coding scheme****From**:*karl@cs.umb.edu (Karl Berry)***Date**: Wed, 4 Dec 91 16:26:57 EST- Reply-To: karl@cs.umb.edu

Alan writes: should we expect all document designs to be font-specific (in which case we can expect document designers to do the work of making sure the correct digits are used) or as font-independent as possible (so the same document should TeX as well as possible with different fonts)? Fonts have to be specified in the (global) TeX document; but obviously the same *textual part* of the document (i.e., not the macros/style files) should be independent of the fonts used. What this means, as far as I can see, that the macro package designers have to 1) make it easy to change fonts, and 2) be sure that the usual accent and other commands -- \', \' and the like -- work for all fonts (or at least where at all reasonable). When the new math font encoding is published, I think it would be very useful if TeX control sequence names were given to each character. (Perhaps they already are; I still haven't been able to get a copy of the original proposal.) Likewise for the characters in the Cork encoding. For example, [ is a Geometric in CMR, whereas in Monotype Baskerville it's a Humanist. As you imply, Humanist-Geometric is a continuum, not a dichotomy, and along several dimensions. For the best typography, surely every character is a Humanist. For a short proof of some ad that no one is going to see but me, every character might be a Geometric. b) The humanist symbols from cmsy, msam and msbm, including \dagger, \yen, etc. for use outside mathematics, c) If there's room (ho ho), this might be a good place to put the caps and small caps, universal currency, and the other bits and bobs that didn't make it into the Cork encoding. Should Cyrillic or Hebrew letters used mathematically live here? I don't understand why we want to put any non-mathematical characters into the math fonts. From a font designer's point of view, s/he is more than likely only interested in creating a math font or a text font. Very few families will have both. From a document designer's point of view, it is simplest and cleanest if the ``math stuff'' is well-separated from the ``text stuff'' -- since that's the way the existing fonts are going to be arranged. There aren't nearly enough positions in a 256-character encoding to specify even all the useful math characters. Why even consider adding the bullet and dagger and so forth? (I don't mean to sound harsh, I just don't get it yet.) Chris Rowley (and barbara?) suggested that we needed a math encoding for every font, not just italic. As you say, also, I think. ``Math fonts are just like text fonts, only different.'' That is, there's no reason to try to cram upright and italic and bold and ... all into one font. People may well want all those variants -- at least whichever of them they can find.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Proposed math coding scheme***From:*Alan Jeffrey <jeffrey@cs.chalmers.se>

**References**:**Re: Proposed math coding scheme***From:*Alan Jeffrey <jeffrey@cs.chalmers.se>

- Prev by Date:
**More on math, I'm afraid** - Next by Date:
**Re: Proposed math coding scheme** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Proposed math coding scheme** - Next by thread:
**Re: Proposed math coding scheme** - Index(es):