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

**To**:*math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk***Subject**:**this list.****From**:*Justin Ziegler <ziegler@goofy.zdv.uni-mainz.de>***Date**: Thu, 05 Aug 1993 11:16:52 -0000

I have recieved two mails this morning on the math-font-discuss list. I feel things need a little bit of recentering. This is not just a place for any sort of font complaint. The idea of this discussion is to give input to us people trying to redesign the *** math *** encoding **** We are not redesigning TeX. The encoding we want to produce should work with every existing format. We are not going to redo all the existing text fonts. as an answer to Sami Sozuer: <<< 1 - It is my understanding that new encoding schemes are being planned to accomodate the usage of calligraphic, fraktur and blackboard letters in math formulas, and that these will have to be assigned to distinct families (6 in all). I believe this is a serious mistake. Many PostScript fonts are available for calligraphic, script and fraktur typefaces and these can be used in math instead. The advantage of this is that one does not have to waste many fonts even if they may never used in a particular document. >>>> you will be astonished to see how fast people at AMS get trough the 16 family limit. A font made for maths does not have the same adjustments as a font made for text. etc...

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Summary of Aston** - Next by Date:
**Powerset** - Prev by thread:
**math font vs text font** - Next by thread:
**Powerset** - Index(es):