[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: defining the script sizes via font dimens
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: defining the script sizes via font dimens
- From: Frank Mittelbach <Frank.Mittelbach@Uni-Mainz.DE>
- Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:38:54 +0100
Matthias Clasen writes:
> I have rewritten the NFSS macro \calculate@math@sizes to first load the
> mathfonts only in text size, then get the new font dimensions, set the
> math spacing and script and scriptscript sizes from them (this includes
> converting from pt to mu) and finally load the math fonts in all three
> sizes. Since \calculate@math@sizes will only be called if the sizes are not
> already known, you can still use \DeclareMathSizes to get the sizes you want.
> My code seems to work well now, since I am rounding font dimensions to
> three digits now, thus avoiding the rounding problems between vptovf and
this sounds like the right approach in general (ie if all such fonts
come with this information) but it means that this is extra code that
has to be kept in the kernel throughout the whole document (ie it is
not preamble only)
the second problem that i see is that (at least at the moment) we
still need to set up all major sizes anyway (since the kernel has to
run with fonts not having those extra font information) so your
designer information might never get looked at.
there is one alternative that i can see which is to think about an
interface that provides defaults unless the font already has suitable
which would load the basic font checks for the font dimens and if not
found uses the default.
that interface would have the advantage that it would be pramble only
thus could be as complicated and space consuming as you like.
btw from which font do you get this information? or do you intend to
maintain different values for each font family?
> A question out of ignorance: what new font dimensions have been added to EC?
guess joerg can answer this better, i would need to look it up
> > third, why assume that i might not be wrong?
> Oh, I would never :-)
thank you. what is the smiley for?