[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on 0.56
- To: BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG
- Subject: Re: Comments on 0.56
- From: Ulrik Vieth <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:25:11 +0100
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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.
They are definitely private additions to the usual AMS fonts. I'm not
sure if they are currently used in the bold version of the CM layout.
Anyway, thanks for pointing out the font naming inconsistency.
> 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.
Yes, but if a whole font is unavailable, e.g. if there is no MS1
and MS2 in MathTime, subustituting the corresponding CM version
should probably not occur automatically. Ideally, the LaTeX
interface should presumably give an error message in such a case
before any attempt is made to typeset a glyph from a non-existent
font, which would then be mapped to "dummy".
Hope this clarifies what I wanted to say.