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

**To**:*BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG, lcs@topo.math.u-psud.fr, math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk, rasmith@arete.com, support@yandy.com***Subject**:**rsfs slant problems****From**:*Laurent Siebenmann <lcs@topo.math.u-psud.fr>***Date**: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 09:03:14 +0100

Barbara Beeton has circulated some recommendations for cursive fonts I will call Ralph Smith's Formal Script a "cursive" font to avoid confusion with "script" as in \scriptstyle meaning "index or exponent style". I am hoping to see Ralph Smith's rsfs enhanced and made available in Type1 format. Barbara Beeton has circulated some desiderata for cursive fonts that include: > composition constraints: > > - assume basic text is 10pt Times Roman or Century Schoolbook > > - hairlines must be thick enough to prevent breakup in sub- and > superscripts, and in reprints from first printing; first-order > script size is approximately 70% of basic text, second-order > size, approximately 50% > > - although rare, some bold script letters are sometimes requested; > normal weight must be distinguishable from bold > > - slope of letters should not be extreme, in order to minimize > problems in applying accents and sub/superscripts; err toward > the upright rather than exaggerated slope > > - x-height should be closer in size to basic text font than is > usual; traditional script fonts tend to have rather low x-height > > - this font need not be usable for continuous text Let us discuss some of these. > - hairlines must be thick enough to prevent breakup in sub- and > superscripts, and in reprints from first printing; OK. But cursive in *2nd Order* sub/super positions is a typographical no-no. Such problems are as well left unsolved. > first-order > script size is approximately 70% of basic text, second-order > size, approximately 50% Hopefully no. Because of metaness, script *height* is only one of several "size" parameters that are varying. *Height* is a constraint; the other paramaters are free to solve the typographical problems that the constrained height brings. - although rare, some bold cursive letters are sometimes requested; normal weight must be distinguishable from bold Well, there is only one sort of bold that should be provided, namely a bold for mathematics in bold titles. If you accept this, then it is *untrue* that it must be easily distinguished from ordinary cursive. The constraint is that it look in balance with cmbx10--12. - slope of letters should not be extreme, in order to minimize problems in applying accents and sub/superscripts; err toward the upright rather than exaggerated slope The advice "err toward the upright rather than exaggerated slope" does reduce some problems, notably those that arise when one places a cursive letter in a super/sub position. Maybe I am missing something basic, but I fail to see why slope causes serious problems with respect to any of the following: --- applying math accents to cursive characters --- applying (non-cursive) sub/super-scripts to cursive characters the reason being that TeX has adequate parameters to get the right placements - respectively: --- the implicit kerns with the "skew character" of the cursive font --- the italic corrections in the cursive font. As for the problems that arise when one places a slanted letter in a super/sub position, I am afraid TeX has nothing to offer much better than "hand setting". Why? My impression is that Knuth avoided this problem by special boxy ad hoc design of certain letters such as y and j in cmmi. I would recommend the same policy for rsfs. On the other hand, Knuth's "skew character" trickery could I believe be extended to solve these problems in some future e-TeX. This is a hint for Mathias Classen and friends. Cheers Larry Siebenmann PS. Has someone redesigned MathTime to avoid the problem last discussed? I am unlikely to use MathTime again for heavy math until that happens. Once burned twice shy.

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