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

Re: BSR CM type 1 arrows, StMaryRd, and RSFS

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
>    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.