[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: comments on mathfont-0.5
- To: Ulrik Vieth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: comments on mathfont-0.5
- From: Frank Mittelbach <Frank.Mittelbach@uni-mainz.de>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:32:33 +0200
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Ulrik Vieth writes:
> 2. Some of the font tables in mathfont/doc/charts.dvi lie partially
> off the page. The guilty part seems to be the line \textheight=1000pt
> at the top of mathfont/tex/charts.tex. Replacing the 1000pt by a more
> reasonable value like 650pt should fix it.
> Surprisingly, the comment "%FMi" in the offending line seems to
> indicate that the problem came from nfssfont.tex form LaTeX base.
> Is there any good reason for this or simply a LaTeX bug? (Frank?)
this is simply "i don't know".
i'm still looking for some volunteer who does have a look at this
nfssfont.tex and updates it's interface to also allow to specify fonts
using nfss syntax, eg
or something like that. that update could then also include producing
a more sensible page layout. any takers?
so yes, think this is most likely a bug. don't have any idea why i
added that back then (perhaps to ensure that large tables fit? but it
is a stupid value)
> 5. Concerning the Euler version: I don't see why you treat Euler
> just as another math version. Shouldn't it actually be another
> implementation containing Euler as normal and Euler bold as bold?
i haven't yet looked at the implementation only downloaded it but i do
agree that Euler should be implemented as an alternative, ie as a full
(or partially full) set of fonts to be used as an alternative to cm