[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: comments on mfnt_051 euler version
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: comments on mfnt_051 euler version
- From: Ulrik Vieth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:47:21 +0200
- Cc: email@example.com
> 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).
Yes, I noticed that, but I didn't care much about the bold version yet.
As I said earlier, what I really need are the bold math alphabets,
not the bold symbols or delimiters.
> 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
Yes, I think it would indeed be helpful to have separate make targets
to generate cm/euler/concrete/whatever individually. The other night,
I just spend so much time testing the Euler version that I didn't get
to try the Concrete version yet. As for other versions, I think it
would be very important to try a Times/Symbol version as well in order
to see what could really be implemented without Metafont hackery.
> 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.
Yes, certainly beter, but still room for improvements.
> 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.
I'd agree to renaming MX1s, MX2s -> MX1, MX2 as the default encodings.
The old MX1, MX2 might then perhaps become MX1e, MX2e (e = extended).
> 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.