[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: BSR CM type 1 arrows, StMaryRd, and RSFS
- To: bbeeton <BNB@math.ams.org>, "Y&Y, Inc." <support@yandy.com>
- Subject: Re: BSR CM type 1 arrows, StMaryRd, and RSFS
- From: "Y&Y, Inc." <support@yandy.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:33:31 -0500
- Cc: bbeeton <BNB@math.ams.org>, s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk, tex-fonts@math.utah.edu, vieth@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de, lcs@topo.math.u-psud.fr, rasmith@arete.com
At 12:15 PM 3/10/98 -0500, bbeeton wrote:
>i wrote:
> many of our authors have *very* *strong* opinions about the shape of
> script letters, and rsfs is closer to their concept of script than
> is anything else readily available. (but it's a real beast as far
> as placement of subs, sups and diacritics; that's why both knuth's
> calligraphic and the euler script are significantly more vertical.)
>
>berthold responded:
> Hmm, interesting makes it sound like it ought to be treated as a math
font
> then so that one can use the bogus metrics used in math fonts to
> position subscripts and superscripts. Of course, that does mean
> using up yet another math family. Does it make sense to squeeze it
> in with another math font (and then have to translate character codes
> from A-Z to wheever it has to fit in the remaining space)?
>
>but it already *is* being treated as a math font with all its special
>metrics. the problem is the shapes of the letters and the excessive
Oh dear or dear. The metrics are quite wrong for a math font. I just
looked at them. Ugh. So now what? If one makes a font with proper
subscript and superscript position it can't be called RSFS...Sigh.
Berthold.