Am Die, 2002-05-14 um 12.24 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > The result of the above is that we usually place the dots (diaeresis) or > rings quite close to the rest of the character as they are parts of the > same glyph. In ConTeXt the closest presentation of this seems to be, funny > enough, \aumlaut and \oumlaut while there isn't any fix to � (a ring); /aa > (or � directly from my Finnish keyboard) really looks odd in the ConTeXt > output as the ring is very thin and quite high up, looks a bit like it is > about to fly away. :-)
I also wondered about the odd appearance of \Aring (when using my favorite unit, \Angstrom). The reason is, as far as I have traced it, that context defaults to the ae fonts. The respective glyphs in the ec fonts look much better. I have been absent from ec / type1 issues for some time, so a question from my part: Are the freely available type1 versions of these fonts mature enough and included in the major distributions, so they could be used instead of the ae fonts by default? If so, I think this should be considered. Eckhart
