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

**To**:*sozueh@rpi.edu***Subject**:**Re: design size****From**:*bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>***Date**: 05 Aug 1993 09:15:01 -0400 (EDT)**Cc**:*Martin.Ward@durham.ac.uk, math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk*

though i haven't time to do so, i can't resist entering this discussion on design size. the american math society is using times roman because of tradition and not because the scaling approach is "better". (it isn't. it's just less expensive, and costs are pretty high for math typesetting even using the least expensive technologies.) in fact, with an impending change of typesetting equipment to postscript technology, we have explored the range of available times fonts and have chosen the one (by monotype) that is closest in design to the original. although multiple design sizes are not available, i believe we would use them if they were. especially in math notation, the subtle variations in design size of traditional type yield results that are more readable than can be obtained simply by scaling. a related point: knuth's distinction between math italic and text italic is also an improvement that is not fully appreciated. it is very tedious, if not necessarily difficult, to determine the metrics and build virtual fonts out of "ordinary" italic that can be used to set math in an intelligible and unambiguous manner. -- bb

- Prev by Date:
**Powerset** - Next by Date:
**more info** - Prev by thread:
**design size** - Next by thread:
**math font vs text font** - Index(es):