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

Re: comments on mfnt_051 euler version

On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Ulrik Vieth wrote:

> After playing with the latest release from Matthias, I somehow got
> hooked when I noticed a couple of problems with the Euler version.

The bold version of the cm layout and the Euler layout are only a 
very first sketch - just to test \mathversion and layout changing. 

Also many glyphs in the bold cm version need improvement (eg many
extensibles are excessively bold now; the cmbex parameters have been
mechanically derived from cmsy/cmbsy).

> 8. Is that enough bugs for one evening of hacking? ;-)  I hope so! 
>    Patches (context diffs) follow below ...

Certainly yes,... many thanks! I will incorporate the patches
in the next version. I'll also have a look at euxm/eusm.

I have noticed that you put some stuff for a concrete layout in
one of the tex driver files. If you want to start working on that,
feel free to do so - I do not plan to add further layouts/mathversions 
myself, since the build process is already quite time-consuming on
my little Linux box at home. Perhaps I should try to add separate make
goals for each layout/mathversion to make working on a single mathversion

How do you like the new font tables for MX1s, MX2s and MS2 ? 
If you want to show nicely formatted font tables at EuroTeX98, these
should be much better than the crowded tables of MX1 and MX2. Since
MX1s and MX2s should be the default versions, we should perhaps rename
them to MX1/MX2 before its too late and change MX1/MX2 to something else.
It does not really matter to what, since the fonts using what is now
called MX1s and MX1 should really be considered as using the same encoding, 
as they differ only in the `variable area'. The different encoding names
are necessary just for fontinst.

Regards, Matthias