[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: Matthias Clasen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:43:18 +0100
- 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.
Sorry, these are just my stumbling bold versions, created by
applying the diffs between the parameters of cmsy and cmbsy to
the parameters of ms[ab]m. They are in no way working fonts and
should probably get completely diffent names.
> 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.
Follwing this line of thought, we could generate a vf full of missing
glyphs and use that for nonexistent fonts. That way any missing glyph
would clearly show up in print, regardless if it is missing from a font or
the complete font is missing.
Institut fuer Mathematik, Albert-Ludwigs-Universitaet Freiburg