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

**To**:*Ulrik Vieth <vieth@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de>***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**:*mclasen@sun2.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de, math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk*

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 \nfssspec cmr/m/n/10 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 fonts. cheers frank

- Prev by Date:
**comments on mathfont-0.5** - Next by Date:
**Re: comments on mathfont-0.5** - Prev by thread:
**comments on mathfont-0.5** - Next by thread:
**Re: comments on mathfont-0.5** - Index(es):