## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

 Options: Use Classic View Use Monospaced Font Show Text Part by Default Condense Mail Headers Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

 Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]> From: "J%org Knappen, Mainz" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 16:48:56 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]> Parts/Attachments: text/plain (45 lines) David, if you really want to emulate the behaviour of \mathrm{\gamma} with the MC font encoding, this is a solution to the problem. It is not the only one, as I want to line out in some more detail: Currently the is a _subencoding_ OMA (Old Math Alphabetic), which is a subset of both OML (cmmi's encoding) and OT1 (cmr's encoding). It contains the latin A-Z, a-z, the digits 0-9, and the greek special capitals \Gamma- \Omega (including \Upsilon). This subencoding currently has something to do with the text encoding, since cmr is both cm text roman and cm math roman at the same time. However, the connection is not necessary. I am thinking of a new subencoding MA (Math Alphabetic) which is in fact OMA plus lowercase greek letters plus completed uppercase greek letters plus some letterlike symbols (\dbar coming to my mind as an obvious candidate for this, \partial and \Nabla, too. This list not complete.). Then we could have a differently organised group of fonts:      Current situation Justin's Proposal alternative proposal      OT1 (cmr) T1 (?) MC1 *      OML (cmmi) MC MC2      OMS (cmsy) MSP MSP      OMX (cmex) MX MX **      U (all other) MS1 MS1                               MS2 MS2 MA is subset of both MC1 and MC2, where MC1 contains math roman and MC2 math italic. Further fonts (without symbols, but purely MA encoded) can provide math text italic, math sans serif and math typewriter on demand. Since It is possible to make OML (or almost all of it) a subset of MC2 and (almost all of) OT1 a subset of MC1, compatibility to the old version can be kept. * T1 for math roman is not explicitly stated in Justin's proposal, as far as I can see. ** MX may need splitting in tow parts. In this case, separating the vertically extensible things from the horizontally extensibles ones looks preferable to me. --J"org Knappen