# BBB versus Fractur (not!)

• To: math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk
• Subject: BBB versus Fractur (not!)
• From: alanje@cogs.susx.ac.uk (Alan Jeffrey)
• Date: Sat, 14 Aug 93 16:12 BST

Yannis wrote:

>Speaking of styles: I have a complaint with CMMI and I know many mathematicians
>agree with me: the \Cal letters are not calligraphic enough.

I'd say it the other way round, that the \Cal letters are too
calligraphic, and that for many documents they should be script letters!

We currently have two proposals for script letters: that font
implementors should be allowed to put script or calligraphic letters into
the slot currently occupied by \cal, or that the script letters should be
given their own separate font.  The advantage of the former is that it
saves a family, where the latter is a much cleaner solution.  The
strongest argument for the former is that documents containing script
*and* calligraphic are very rare.  (In fact, does anyone know of any
mathematical documents that used calligraphic rather than script letters,
before DEK put \cal into TeX?)

>as for the MF code, I would gladly prepare it

Thanks!  That would be very useful!  It would be nice if there was enough
meta-ness to include a bold version.

There will probably be other MF jobs that will crop up once the encoding
reaches time for alpha-testing, so if anyone would like to volunteer for
MF work, we'll be very grateful!

Alan.