[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Extensible accents
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Alan Jeffrey)
- Date: Thu, 5 Aug 93 16:09 BST
One possibility for the extensible accents is that we *don't* specify
precisely the size and slots for each of the extensions. Instead, we
could specify the slot of the smallest extensible accent, and then leave
it up to the font implementor which extensions to include, and which
slots to put them in. This means leaving some slots in the MX encoding
as `for extensions', and letting the charlist do the work of letting TeX
get at the accents.
The reason for suggesting this is that I don't see much point in the
standard specifying which size accents should live in which slots, when
most math fonts (MathTime, Lucida, Lucida New, Mathematical Pi, etc.)
already come with a fixed set of accents which we can't do anything about.
We *can* make recommendations for implementors, and we *can* decide which
accents to put into a math font based on CM, but we *can't* specify what
size glyphs every math font should provide.
Just my $0.02 worth,