[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: design size
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- 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, email@example.com
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.