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

**To**:*vieth@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de***Subject**:**Re: distribution of symbols on MSP/MS1****From**:*Matthias Clasen <clasen@pong.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de>***Date**: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 15:44:29 +0200**Cc**:*math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk*

Ulrik Vieth wrote: > I wanted to come back to this issue and prepare and alternative > proposal for the distribution of symbols in MSP/MS1 anyhow. Feel free to do so. Personally, I'm a bit tired of font-table-reshuffling by now...for a change, I'll probably try to create glyphs for some of the missing bigops in MX2. > P.S. Would there be any significant advantage in trying to place all > the LASY glyphs into the MSP, so that not only LaTeX base, but also > LaTeX base + lasy could be implemented in 4 families, thereby making > it possible to provide the full LaTeX 2.09 symbol complement with one > family less than previously required. It appears that all it would > take is relocating the triangles from MS1 to MSP, while some of the > AMS glyphs, e.g. the sub/superset-or-not-equals group could easily be > moved to MS1 to make room. Why not, if you are going to reorganize MSP/MS1 anyway. Regards, Matthias PS. When did the name MSP/math symbol priviledge come up ? I have noticed that the paper by Alan Jeffrey, mgaston.tex, speaks about MS1/MS2/MS3. What exactly is the priviledge ?

- Prev by Date:
**Re: distribution of symbols on MSP/MS1** - Next by Date:
**Re: distribution of symbols on MSP/MS1** - Prev by thread:
**Re: distribution of symbols on MSP/MS1** - Next by thread:
**Re: distribution of symbols on MSP/MS1** - Index(es):