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

**To**:*vieth@convex.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de***Subject**:**Re: About atomic encoding****From**:*alanje@cogs.susx.ac.uk (Alan Jeffrey)***Date**: Mon, 11 Apr 94 18:43 BST**Cc**:*MJD@MATH.AMS.ORG, math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk*

>If the upright `i' would come from a real *math* roman font with >appropriate math_fitting rather than a text roman font, the problem >probably would go away. Yup, but as you noticed, there's a catch... >This would however require loading another >math symbol font, which would be a waste of families Insert standard grumble about DEK's 16-family limit here... If you're keen to get round the family limit, you could try producing a MC-encoded roman font (suitable for use as particle symbols, checmical formulae, etc.) but with enough kerning information to make it possible to use it as an operator font as well. It may be that this is technically infesible (the kern table might end up being huge) but you never know... Alan.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Familiy limit (was: About atomic encoding)***From:*vieth@convex.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Ulrik Vieth)

**References**:**Re: About atomic encoding***From:*vieth@convex.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Ulrik Vieth)

- Prev by Date:
**Re: About atomic encoding** - Next by Date:
**Re: fc posting** - Prev by thread:
**Re: About atomic encoding** - Next by thread:
**Re: Familiy limit (was: About atomic encoding)** - Index(es):