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

**To**:*Thierry.Bouche@ujf-grenoble.fr***Subject**:**Re: Mathematica symbol fonts****From**:*Ulrik Vieth <vieth@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de>***Date**: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:36:33 +0200**Cc**:*math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk*

> When working on MathPi, I found that it was better to first edit the > AFM file to give proper names to the glyhs than hacking once > more the fontinst-encoding... > However, is there any standard for the glyph names that will end up in > M* encodings? I'm not even sure that the various type 1 versions of > CM, lucida or symbol agree. Does the unicode glyph registry help? This is good question indeed. While I was working on the .etx files for the Mathematica fonts, I noticed that names currently in use in the preliminary test implementations are already very inconsistent. It appears that OML.etx, OMS.etx from fontinst are trying to use standard names for the symbols available in Adobe Symbol, but this is not necessarily the case for MSAM.etx, MSBM.etx and the new encodings. As for CM and AMS: Do the BaKoMa and the BlueSky symbol names agree? Cheers, Ulrik.

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Mathematica symbol fonts** - Next by Date:
**Re: Mathematica symbol fonts** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Mathematica symbol fonts** - Next by thread:
**Re: Mathematica symbol fonts** - Index(es):