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

**To**:*math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk***Subject**:**Extensible accents****From**:*alanje@cogs.susx.ac.uk (Alan Jeffrey)***Date**: Thu, 5 Aug 93 16:09 BST

One possibility for the extensible accents is that we *don't* specify precisely the size and slots for each of the extensions. Instead, we could specify the slot of the smallest extensible accent, and then leave it up to the font implementor which extensions to include, and which slots to put them in. This means leaving some slots in the MX encoding as `for extensions', and letting the charlist do the work of letting TeX get at the accents. The reason for suggesting this is that I don't see much point in the standard specifying which size accents should live in which slots, when most math fonts (MathTime, Lucida, Lucida New, Mathematical Pi, etc.) already come with a fixed set of accents which we can't do anything about. We *can* make recommendations for implementors, and we *can* decide which accents to put into a math font based on CM, but we *can't* specify what size glyphs every math font should provide. Just my $0.02 worth, Alan. .