[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More questions on low slots
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: More questions on low slots
- From: Ulrik Vieth <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 12:16:08 +0200
- Cc: mjd@MATH.AMS.ORG, firstname.lastname@example.org
>> However, let me hastily contradict myself and
>> say that it might be rather useful in a math symbol font to have a
>> phantom 0 and phantom minus sign character, for tables of numbers. And
>> one of those could naturally go into slot 32 :-) Maybe those are in the
>> proposal already, in fact---I don't recall offhand.
> I don't think this has been proposed. If we do that, then the union of
> \skewchar and space will lose its attractiveness, since the space will then
> be used in the dvi-file and we would have to fear that the skewchar kerning
> would appear in the document. If we decide to do this and move the skewchar
> away from slot 32 again, I would vote for slot 255 instead of 0, since the
> MSP encoding has an accent in slot 0 which has to live there. 255 could be
> reserved in all encodings.
What about slot 127, which is also left unsused in T1 fonts due to the
difficulties of inputting ASCII DEL. If we really need a slot for the
skewchar that will not to be used for typesetting, why not this one?