[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: comments on 0.58
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: comments on 0.58
- From: Matthias Clasen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:19:30 +0100
- Cc: email@example.com
> - The raised radical in MC seems to be raised a little too
> much compared with the delimiters. If its height is 10pt,
> should it be 8.5pt above the baselien and 1.5pt below?
> (The placement seems to be better in the bold version.)
Well, I didn't think about that very long, I just raised them
to the baseline (ie depth = 0), since I didn't know any better.
The question here is, I think, if non-TeX software might have
any special expectations about the positioning of the radical
> - MSP has at least two missing glpyhs (apart from script/cal)
> which are `smallsigmaintegral' and `smallslashintegral'.
> Since the corresponding big integrals are not in MXP,
> should the small variants be taken out of MSP as well?
I did in fact have them in MS1 or MS2 sometime back, but then
moved them to MSP for design similarity reasons. But since
these glyphs seem to be not present in any layout so far, it
might be better to move them to MS2 and make room for some more
widely implemented glyphs in MSP.
> - MS2 contains two slots for `parallel' and `interleaving'.
> Aren't these the same as `bardbl' and `bartrpl' in MC
> used as \mathbin? If so, they should be taken out of MS2.
Yes, perhaps, I may have thought about `do not use glyphs for
more than one purpose' when I put them there.
> - slot 130 (`EXT') in MSP presumably should be marked as
> a controlglyph rather than a missingglyph (or not at all)?
You mean the EXT in the arrowkit?
Institut fuer Mathematik, Albert-Ludwigs-Universitaet Freiburg