LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
From: Hans Aberg <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:42:54 +0200
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (44 lines)
At 09:41 97-04-14, J%org Knappen, Mainz wrote:

>This is specially to Hans Aberg:
>Please look thru the archives of math-font-discuss *now*. It will prevent
>you from repeating old arguments and may enable you to contribute something
>really new -- I don't pretend to know everything, but hearing old
>discussions anew is quite boring.

  In fact the l3d007.tex document says (p 34, par 5.10):

    Also J\"org Knappen writes: ``I strongly support having two different
    encodings, one for cal and one for script. If users have the choice
    between cal and script, they prefer script (at least in
    Mainz\footnote{Maybe Americans prefer it the other way
      round.}). However, the old calligraphic alphabet still
    needs to be supported for compatibility reasons.''

  Now, as the discussions revealed here in this group, both those fonts
should probably be kept for upwards compatibility, but then one should also
design a new set with upright/slanted shapes (Frank Mittelbach had some
suggestions for that), for use as constants/non-constants.

  So this also puts Barbara Beetons comment in the same paragraph in
      \textbf{Note:} Barbara Beeton writes ``Regarding script vs.
    calligraphic, I do understand the difference; however, at AMS I believe
    we only very rarely get a request to use both styles in the same paper.
If one wants use both upright/slanted (like Euler script/CM calligraphic),
in the same paper, it would be to bring out that constants/non-constants
difference. These two fonts not match, so not being good for this purpose,
and they are not sufficiently different for being used as two different
sets; this may explaine why these are rarely used together.

  In addition, both these fonts are not suffiently scripty for many
purposes, and there seems to be no suggestion for a more scripty font in
that work draft. With appearance of a new, more scripty font, Barbara
Beeton might see two different scripty fonts being used in parallel.

  So despite Mr. J\"org Knappen being tired of hearing everything again, we
have discussed some new, by him overlooked, facts. :-)

  Hans Aberg