[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

**To**:*bbeeton <BNB@math.ams.org>, "Y&Y, Inc." <support@yandy.com>***Subject**:**Re: BSR CM type 1 arrows, StMaryRd, and RSFS****From**:*"Y&Y, Inc." <support@yandy.com>***Date**: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:33:31 -0500**Cc**:*bbeeton <BNB@math.ams.org>, s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk, tex-fonts@math.utah.edu, vieth@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de, lcs@topo.math.u-psud.fr, rasmith@arete.com*

At 12:15 PM 3/10/98 -0500, bbeeton wrote: >i wrote: > 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.) > >berthold responded: > Hmm, interesting makes it sound like it ought to be treated as a math font > then so that one can use the bogus metrics used in math fonts to > position subscripts and superscripts. Of course, that does mean > using up yet another math family. Does it make sense to squeeze it > in with another math font (and then have to translate character codes > from A-Z to wheever it has to fit in the remaining space)? > >but it already *is* being treated as a math font with all its special >metrics. the problem is the shapes of the letters and the excessive Oh dear or dear. The metrics are quite wrong for a math font. I just looked at them. Ugh. So now what? If one makes a font with proper subscript and superscript position it can't be called RSFS...Sigh. Berthold.

- Prev by Date:
**Re: BSR CM type 1 arrows, StMaryRd, and RSFS** - Next by Date:
**Re: BSR CM type 1 arrows, StMaryRd, and RSFS** - Prev by thread:
**Re: BSR CM type 1 arrows, StMaryRd, and RSFS** - Next by thread:
**Re: BSR CM type 1 arrows, StMaryRd, and RSFS** - Index(es):