"James H. Cloos Jr." wrote on 2002-06-05 00:06 UTC: > The (postscript versions of the) interesting math fonts > I beleive all predate adobe's glyph naming recomendations. (At least > for the TeX-related ones; I cannot speak definitively on mozilla's > other set of recomended math fonts (by bitstream for corel, yes?).) > > If you have a full tetex install, check out eg: > > /usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1/bluesky/cm/cmmi10.pfb > /usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1/bluesky/cm/cmsy10.pfb > > with t1disasm to get the glyph names. Another interesting example are > the lucida math fonts. The afms are included in tetex in: > > /usr/share/texmf/fonts/afm/yandy/lumath/ > > None of the glyphs in these fonts which are in unicode but not in > adobe's glyphlist.txt follow the uniXXXX or uXXXXXX name format. > Even some of the glyphs which are in glyphlist.txt may not have the > same name as adobe recommends.
It might be very worthwile to start updating the PostScript glyph names in the various TeX Type1 fonts to match current standards, as soon as Adobe has updated http://partners.adobe.com/asn/developer/type/unicodegn.html to Unicode 3.2 coverage. This would not only make them more easy to use for MathML rendering, but it might also solve a number of other problems, such as currect Unicode string cut&paste out of TeX generated PDF files with acroread, etc. Who is currently on charge of these font files? AMS? Markus -- Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK Email: mkuhn at acm.org, WWW: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/> _______________________________________________ Fonts mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/fonts
