[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: radical thoughts
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: radical thoughts
- From: Ulrik Vieth <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:00:02 +0100
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> If I remember correctly, Justin Ziegler in his paper on `Replacing cmex?'
> came to the conclusion that loading the extensible font in three sizes
> would only improve things.
> The only problem with this `best solution' is that we don't have three
> sizes available for the mf-based layouts, which have extensible fonts
> in sizes 7, 8, 9, 10 right now. It might be possible to generate a first
> approximation to 5 point versions using the technique by which I created
> cmbex...: compare the parameters in cmsy7 and cmsy5 and apply the
> differences to cmex7 to generate cmex5.
- To create cmex6 or cmex7, take the parameters from cmr5 or cmr6.
- Change the font_identifer: "CMR" -> "CMEX"
- Change the generate: generate roman -> generate mathex
- Finally, add the fontdimen code from cmex7 and try out if anything
needs to be be adjusted.
> The next release (to be out today) will have the textsize radical in
> MC (in slot 61). But if we have reached a consensus that the best solution is
> to have a low textsize radical in MXP and a raised textsize radical somewhere
> else, we could simply specify that the radical in MC should be raised to
> make it usable for other typesetting systems (I guess that would mean putting
> it on the baseline?).
I would be a little worried about adding a low textsize radical in MC
after having spent a lot of words in the EuroTeX paper explaining why
we want to confine all TeX-specific glyphs in MXn. I don't really want
to rewrite the paper one week before submission of the final version.