[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: BSR CM type 1 arrows, StMaryRd, and RSFS
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: BSR CM type 1 arrows, StMaryRd, and RSFS
- From: bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 09:49:07 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, support@YandY.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
The distinction between Script and Calligraphic is very muddled,
but it exists.
yes, but is that distinction "mainstream" or in very specialized
i guess i can call ams "mainstream"?
many of our authors have *very* *strong* opinions about the shape of
script letters, and rsfs is closer to their concept of script than
is anything else readily available. (but it's a real beast as far
as placement of subs, sups and diacritics; that's why both knuth's
calligraphic and the euler script are significantly more vertical.)
however, it's my understanding that we blithely ignore them owing at
least partly to the fact that our journals are posted in electronic
form as well as printed on paper. for electronic posting, only type
1 fonts are really satisfactory, and at present, only cm (and thus
calligraphic) is available in type 1 form without strings attached.
one could wish otherwise.