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

**To**:*lcs@suntopo.matups.fr, math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk***Subject**:**Re: Palatino/CMR conflict situation for \sin****From**:*yannis@gat.citilille.fr (Yannis Haralambous)***Date**: Sun, 29 Aug 93 10:43:20 +0200

> Yannis> But it [CMR] should not be the default mode [for \sin] > > I wish to add two arguments for CMR > indeed being the default mode. > > 1) (administrative) CMR *must* be chosen when we move from > Palatino to a Greek or Russian font. First of all, your sentence has no sense: you are comparing a font design (Palatino) with a script (Greek or Russian). Do you imagine perhaps that people writing Greek and Russian do not use Palatino for their scripts? Everywhere in the world where PostScript printers are used (because Palatino is PostScript) you find the same standard fonts: Times, helvetica, Courier, Palatino, Avant Garde, Schoolbook etc. Other companies (than Adobe) have also prepared other fonts (like Futura, Souvenir, Optima etc) in these scripts. This was also the reason why I insisted for a fifth argumet in NFSS2. Secondly, at least in Greek, \sin and \cos are *always* written in Greek (imitono, sinimitono, etc.). So I can see why one *should be able* to switch to CMR, but certainly not why one *must* choose it. > > 2) (aesthetic) In osudeG.sty (a math book style for de > Gruyter found on matups.matups.fr) I give a revamped > version of \mathsurround that allows math to be gracefully > distanced from prose. (Knuth's \mathsurround is unbearable > when prose punctuation follows math.) It better gives > a sense that two languages are alternating: math and (say) > English. The CMR choice makes the math more coherent. > I agree that \mathsurround is necessary; but is not sufficient to force a choice on CMR. We should develop better mechanisms to emulate it with arbitrary fonts. I agree that two languages are alternating, but since when do we change fonts when languages are alternating? after all one of NFSS2 big advantages is that we don't need to do this. It is also doubtfull if \sin, \cos belong to the math "language" or to the "English language". They are not variables, they escape to the usual rules of mathematical notation (a letter=a mathematical object), they *are* beginings of words. Their proliferation is the best proof: besides the ones given by DEK you can find Hom, Iso, Aut, bij, and many new ones are constantly invented. When you wite something like The set $\Aut(E,E)$ of automorphisms of $E$ into itself wouldn't it look strange if ``Aut'' inside dollars and ``aut'' outside dollars look different? for me it wuld look like some publications which force the use of some PostScript font (usually Times) but cannot avoid authors using CMR in math, producing a not very orthodox typographic mixture. yh

- Prev by Date:
**Palatino/CMR conflict situation for \sin** - Next by Date:
**Re: the nature of \sin** - Prev by thread:
**Palatino/CMR conflict situation for \sin** - Next by thread:
**Re: mathdiscretionary** - Index(es):