[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on 0.56
- To: Ulrik Vieth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Comments on 0.56
- From: bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 09:49:29 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: email@example.com
just a comment on the names of a couple of fonts ...
3. The distribution:
- The bex and bams subdirectories both contain msamb10, msbmb10?
Which version is the correct one? (bams contains sizes 5..10,
but bex is newer)
i don't know what these are. since the final m in msam and msbm
means "medium", bold versions should be named ms*b. neither of
msamb10 or msbmb10 has come from ams, although they may very well
have been constructed on the same principles.
ulrik also asks
Why not use the AMS "dummy.tfm" for this?
i.e., for the mapping of non-existent versions of various files.
i'd just like to point out that the dimensions in dummy.tfm are
explicitly zero, since the "font", intended for syntax checking,
was designed to not actually typeset anything and thus avoid the
time spent in line and page breaking.
if i were trying actually set and print a draft for checking, i
personally would rather have a space left if some glyph isn't
available, not everything around that element run together.