[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on 0.56
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Comments on 0.56
- From: Matthias Clasen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 19:06:13 +0100
> > - newmath.dtx/.fdd: Dokumentation of the LaTeX interface
> Bad choice, since both would produce a newmath.dvi.
> Please consider renaming newmath.fdd to something else.
Oops, thinko, I never actually formatted newmath.fdd except once,
where web2c-7.0 latex produced newmath.fdd.dvi.
> One option might be to take out all the font tables from bigdoc,
> perhaps even put the new documentation of the new encodings
> in a separate file as well, so that bigdoc will just present
> the framework and to separate sub-documents for everything else.
Yes. And it should get a new name too, then (it won´t be that big
any longer then).
> > From a usability standpoint, wouldn't it sometimes be better to have
> > a symbol from cm (even if it isn't a perfect match) than no symbol
> > at all ? And would using dummy.tfm solve the table-generation
> > problem ? I guess you would just get empty tables, no ?
> Presumably, such a substitution of a symbol from CM/AMS should be
> requested explicitly rather than occur automatically. (And yes,
> it does occur in practice. Several IOP physics journals are printed
> with MathTime fonts, but they apparently resort to AMS glyphs for
> leqslant/geqslant and lesssim/gtrsim. In the MathTime MSP font,
> I've faked these symbols to avoid such problems in the future.)
I agree with explicit requests - although this creates two different
kinds of missing symbols: the ones where the font exist and the
ones where the whole font is missing. The latter ones could then
be substituted by a package option like `substitutecm´, while the
former ones would remain missing (unless we reintroduce the uglyness
of separate macros for each layout).
> As for the table-generation problem, I suppose layout.tex should
> gain some intelligence, so that it can deduce from them math layout,
> whether or not "extrasym", "extraops", or a bold series are available.
> Perhaps this could be achieved by adding a few lines to each of the
> *.mfd files.
It would rather just add the few lines to layout.tex itself. Or perhaps
we need the information in the mfd files anyway to support a
hypothetical `substitutecm´ option.
> 1. I'd like to remind you that I suggested a name change last week
> to the effect of
> Times/Symbol -> x sy a,b,c (rather than xta, ...)
> Mathematica -> x mm a,b,c,d,e (rather than xsa, ...)
> While xt... for Times might be OK, I find it very confusing to refer
> to the MMa version as xs...
Sorry, I have completely overlooked that.