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

Re: radical thoughts

Ulrik wrote:
> I think the best solution might be to put one size into MXP and load
> MXP in three sizes by default.  My impression is that apart from the
> radicals it would allow to get more appropriate sizes of big operators
> and big delimiters in scriptsize and scriptscriptsize formulas, e.g.
> if you have something like
>   e^{\sum_n x_n}   or   e^{i \left( k x - \omega t \right)}
> (I'm not sure about the side effects on wide accents at the moment.)

If I remember correctly, Justin Ziegler in his paper on `Replacing cmex?'
came to the conclusion that loading the extensible font in three sizes
would only improve things.

The only problem with this `best solution' is that we don't have three
sizes available for the mf-based layouts, which have extensible fonts
in sizes 7, 8, 9, 10 right now. It might be possible to generate a first 
approximation to 5 point versions using the technique by which I created
cmbex...: compare the parameters in cmsy7 and cmsy5 and apply the 
differences to cmex7 to generate cmex5. 

> A macro solution as presented by Matthias would then only required
> in compatibility mode, if you insist on loading MXP at one size only.

An issue with the macro solution would be how it can be integrated with
NFSS ideas about math font selection.

Frank answered:  
> you may as well be right and indeed if that is the way to go then
> having a macro solution for the compatibility case is not too bad.
> in addition however, you might want to have the radical in high
> position in the other font as well as to make them suitable for
> non-TeX usage.


> yes i think checking for possible side effects and if not going for
> this solution together with a macro based compat mode looks most
> promising after this exchange of ideas.

The next release (to be out today) will have the textsize radical in
MC (in slot 61). But if we have reached a consensus that the best solution is
to have a low textsize radical in MXP and a raised textsize radical somewhere
else, we could simply specify that the radical in MC should be raised to 
make it usable for other typesetting systems (I guess that would mean putting
it on the baseline?).

I would perhaps need some assistance by NFSS experts with the integration
of my `macro solution' with NFSS math font selection.

Regards, Matthias

Matthias Clasen, 
Tel. 0761/203-5606
Email: clasen@mathematik.uni-freiburg.de
Institut fuer Mathematik, Albert-Ludwigs-Universitaet Freiburg