# Re: about EuroTeX (again)

• To: math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk
• Subject: Re: about EuroTeX (again)
• From: Ulrik Vieth <vieth@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de>
• Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 11:36:22 +0200


>> \item Introduction / Motivation / Timeline
>
> I would appreciate proposals for this part.

I have some vague ideas and I suppose I could provide somehting.

>> \item Review of the old math font encodings

> What exactly should go here ? I would think of a table
> showing what glyph groups come from what fonts, where
> the text fonts come into play, etc. Plus a list of
> the major disadvantages of the old encodings (this could
> be taken from Justins paper).

Actually, I was thinking of just mentioning which alphabets are taken
from which fonts, why OT1 is needed for symbols, what kind of text
symbols are in the old encodings that should be taken out, the number
of families needed for compatibility with Plain or AMS, etc.

Part of this material could certainly be take from Justin's report.

>> \item Outline of the new math font encodings
>> \item Design goals and order of priorities

> This could perhaps be lifted more or less directly
> from Justins paper ?

I was actually thinking of Alan's TUGboat article (Report from the
Aston workshop'' in the TUG'93 proceedings).

>> \item Details on the indvidual font tables

>> \item Discussion and open questions

> There is a list of pros and cons in Justins paper. Is this
> the kind of stuff you expect here ?

Maybe.  I was also thinking of issues whether or not to reserve slots
for obscure symbols that are very unlikely to be found in most cases.
Whether to leave certain slots empty for technical reasons, etc.

>> \item Appendix: Snapshot of the font tables

> No problem.

The actual problem may be the page limit (if there is one).  We will
need at least 6 full-page font tables to present the whole set in CM.
If we wanted to include Euler as well, just to show the difference,
this would mean another 2 or 3 pages.

Cheers, Ulrik.