[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: archiving format contest: .dvi versus .tex and .ps (2)
- To: ls@mathp7.jussieu.fr
- Subject: Re: archiving format contest: .dvi versus .tex and .ps (2)
- From: bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>
- Date: 08 May 1994 23:58:31 -0400 (EDT)
- Cc: Joerg.Knappen@uni-mainz.de, math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk
larry siebenmann says:
The msxm and msym fonts are *recently* outdated.
1986 is recent??? maybe on the 100-year timescale ...
and:
Since msam, msbm were not based on 1982 metafont, they are
non-standard stragglers.
there isn't any "1982 metafont". there was mf79, in sail, and mf84,
in web. msxm and mxym were created in mf79 -- *not* current, and *not*
reconstructable. msam and msbm are constructed according to mf84.
i fail to see why they should be considered "non-standard stragglers".
i am confused ...
at ams, we are doing our best to make sure they are as robust, dependable,
and of the same archival quality as the cm* fonts. i do believe the ams
can be considered to have a "scientific archive", although we don't keep
documents in .dvi form. we're not concerned that msam and msbm will
become unreliable, and we *do* expect to re-use many of these documents.
the recommendation to substitute msam and msbm when msxm and msym are
called for is sound; there were (other than the shape change in the
blackboard bold) only a few minor changes between the two pairs of
fonts: one or two duplicated glyphs were removed, and several empty
cells were filled in. the most serious problem is likely to be small
differences in metrics, and of course, a checksum mismatch.
and thanks, larry, for the cautionary note to the developers of the
new 256-character math fonts. nobody wants existing files to suddenly
become unprocessable.
-- bb