[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mathptm + cmex9
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: mathptm + cmex9
- From: Ulrik Vieth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 10:42:58 +0200
- CC: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <9655-Wed01Jul1998081428firstname.lastname@example.org> (messagefrom Sebastian Rahtz on Wed, 1 Jul 1998 08:14:28 +0100)
> Thomas Esser writes:
>> mathptm currently uses cmex9 which is a pity, because there is no
>> cmex9.pfb in the BSR/AMS set.
>> Since you are preparing a new set of the metrics: do you think that it
>> is a good idea to stop using cmex9 for mathptm?
> does cmex10 scaled down produce identical results in terms of spacing?
I just tested it: Although the CHARHT and CHARDP is the same, CHARWD
differs by as much as 0.3pt. I'm afraid we can't change it it mathptm
due to the requirement for metrics compatibilitiy, but it shouldn't be
a problem for mathptmx.