[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: more on a Times/Symbol implementation of MC/MSP
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: more on a Times/Symbol implementation of MC/MSP
- From: Ulrik Vieth <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:22:16 +0200
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Thanks for the new material, Ulrik. So far,I have not looked at the Postscript
> implementation at all (I guess that I will do that when I find time to look
> at mathfonts again); but I have integrated your concrete version. I'll try
> to produce a new snapshot as soon as possible.
I'll try to finish a new release of the `concmath' fonts over the
weekend. During this week, I was still revising the documentation,
although the fonts themselvers are ready.
> IIRC, you asked about the prime and backprime in MC some time ago. If have
> looked at Justins paper and found them in the group `core symbols for design
> similarity reasons', so I guess thats the only reason for them being there
> (it can't be kerning). But I would vote for keeping them in MC, since the
> only alternative would be MSP and it looks as if MSP has even less room than
> MC (if we follow the suggestion to move some exotic new glyphs from MC to MS1,
> like Dal, Vbar and Vbarslanted).
I think we'll sooner or later have to reconsider the contents of MSP.
As for the exoctic glyphs in MC, I'd propose to take them out and put
them ``on hold'' until it is clarified who really needs them and why.
(BTW, what are the chances of rearranging MS1/MS2 so that the slots
0-31 remain empty except for dotless i/j and perhaps math accents.)
> Justin also mentioned two prime ligature
> slots which would have to live with the two primes. I have no idea what these
> ligature slots are supposed to contain. Perhaps a long-term member of the list
> remembers them ?
AFAIK, Unicode has slots for double and triple prime and backprime.
I'm not sure if the original idea was to reserve slots for those and
access them through ligatures if a font provides them. Since most
of the existing fonts do not provide them, I wonder if it is really
such a good idea to waste valuable slots this way.
> A final point, regarding upright greek: Ulrik, you marked your improved
> upright greek as `experimental'. Should I integrate it in the next snapshot ?
I'm not really sure of that myself. Perhaps it would be better to
stick with what you have until we have further investigated other
alternatives for upright greek. I remember that I brought up the
suggestion of using the greek/kelly fonts, which also were derived
from upright CM and some hackery. Perhaps I shold compare that
approach and my work to distill whatever works best of both.
P.S. Still another question: Should the \backepsilon be included
in both upright and italics greek? I'm unfamilar with who uses
this symbol and what for. (Adobe Symbol calls it `suchthat'.)