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

Re: radical thoughts

> 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. 

My suggestion: 
 - To create cmex6 or cmex7, take the parameters from cmr5 or cmr6.
 - Change the font_identifer: "CMR" -> "CMEX"
 - Change the generate:  generate roman -> generate mathex
 - Finally, add the fontdimen code from cmex7 and try out if anything
   needs to be be adjusted.

> 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 be a little worried about adding a low textsize radical in MC
after having spent a lot of words in the EuroTeX paper explaining why
we want to confine all TeX-specific glyphs in MXn.  I don't really want 
to rewrite the paper one week before submission of the final version.

Cheers, Ulrik.