[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: archiving format contest: .dvi versus .tex and .ps (2)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: archiving format contest: .dvi versus .tex and .ps (2)
- From: bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>
- Date: 08 May 1994 23:58:31 -0400 (EDT)
- Cc: Joerg.Knappen@uni-mainz.de, firstname.lastname@example.org
larry siebenmann says:
The msxm and msym fonts are *recently* outdated.
1986 is recent??? maybe on the 100-year timescale ...
Since msam, msbm were not based on 1982 metafont, they are
there isn't any "1982 metafont". there was mf79, in sail, and mf84,
in web. msxm and mxym were created in mf79 -- *not* current, and *not*
reconstructable. msam and msbm are constructed according to mf84.
i fail to see why they should be considered "non-standard stragglers".
i am confused ...
at ams, we are doing our best to make sure they are as robust, dependable,
and of the same archival quality as the cm* fonts. i do believe the ams
can be considered to have a "scientific archive", although we don't keep
documents in .dvi form. we're not concerned that msam and msbm will
become unreliable, and we *do* expect to re-use many of these documents.
the recommendation to substitute msam and msbm when msxm and msym are
called for is sound; there were (other than the shape change in the
blackboard bold) only a few minor changes between the two pairs of
fonts: one or two duplicated glyphs were removed, and several empty
cells were filled in. the most serious problem is likely to be small
differences in metrics, and of course, a checksum mismatch.
and thanks, larry, for the cautionary note to the developers of the
new 256-character math fonts. nobody wants existing files to suddenly