LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Heiko Oberdiek <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:59:54 +0100
text/plain (32 lines)

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 10:56:46AM +0100, Boguslaw Jackowski wrote:

> HO> Open issue: lmtt misses \textperthousand, \texttrademark, 
> \textservicemark
> HO> I agree, they would look ugly squeezed into the width of the other 
> HO> glyphs. But what to do with textcomp's subencoding?
> HO> * virtual font that provides the missing glyphs
> HO> * new subencoding
> I realised that I have one doubt: ;-) the glyph perthousand 
> (\textperthousand, slot 135) _is present_ in the monospaced LM fonts,
> it is permyriad (\textpertenthousand; slot 152) that is absent...
> Anyway, if you consider the missing glyphs a substantial problem, we
> can (reluctantly, needless to sat ;-) include them in the the monospaced 
> fonts in the next release of LMs.

I agree with you, that the three glyphs won't probably look
too nice. But then you can say, that the LM fonts cover
the TS1 encoding completely. IMHO that's worth the price already.
And the LM fonts can then used the same way as the EC fonts.
Otherwise the missing glyphs would cause much headaches
(virtual fonts/new subencoding, unnecessary complicate user
documentation, ...)

Therefore I want to vote for adding the missing glyphs.

Best regards
  Heiko <[log in to unmask]>