Re: Remaining missing glphs

• To: mclasen@sun2.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de
• Subject: Re: Remaining missing glphs
• From: Ulrik Vieth <vieth@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de>
• Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:12:51 +0200
• Cc: math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk


Matthias Clasen wrote:

>>> regarding: \varbeta

> I have not seen this one either, so I don't know how it is supposed
> to look like, but I have picked up the following information in a posting
> to comp.text.tex some time ago:

> :I would like to write a short citation of a greek word, without
> :using a babel package. The TeX Book advises to use math mode.
> :
> :Actually, that's fine, except for the beta, when it's used inside
> :a word ($\beta$ is only correct for initial letters).
> :The correct beta (a \varbeta ?) should look like a mirrored $\partial$

Have a look at

http://www.unicode.org/Unicode.charts/normal/U+0370.html

for a Greek font table.  The \varbeta is in slot U+03D0 and seems to
look like a normal \beta without a stem descending below the baseline
and the upper bowl being perhaps a little more curly than usual.

If this character is only needed for Greek text, it is questionable
whether this justifies allocating two slots in a new math encoding.
On the other hand, the IUPAP standard on symbols in physics states
that if there are two variants of a Greek letter, either one may be
used, so it wouldn't be wrong to use it in math mode if available.

>>> regarding: \skewchar

> Since we're counting slots here, let me mention another idea of mine
> which would buy us 1 slot per encoding:
> Since we have decided to have a space in slot 32 in every encoding,
> is it really necessary to reserve slot 0 as skewchar ? Is there any
> reason against using slot 32 as the skewchar ? No glyph will ever have to
> be kerned against the space, or am I wrong here ? And the dumb drivers
> which rely on the space in slot 32 (are there any ?) will never see the
> kerning, if they ever see a space glyph at all.

Personally, I would welcome this idea if there aren't any technical
reasons speaking against it.  From TeX's point of view, there should
be no need for a space character in math mode, especially not for a
visible space.  If a space glyph is retained as an empty glyph purely
for technical reasons, this would be ideal for use as a \skewchar,
especially since the \skewchar would never appear in the output.

Now, the question remains whether there are any technical reasons
against using character 0 for visible symbols.  I seem to recall that
the 8r-encoding of PostScript fonts avoided the use of characters
0, 10, 13 (i.e. NUL, LFD, RET) in case we meet dump software''.
Since we did not worry about slots 10 and 13 before, I really don't
seem why we should treat slot 0 any different.

Cheers, Ulrik.