At 08:08 PM 6/5/2002 +0200, Eckhart Guth�hrlein wrote:
>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.
there is the (bulky) cm super set (never tried them) which you can give a try
also, there's a user group project going on with regards to a "replacement"
for aer/plr/csr, so a kind of super-ec thing, non virtual type 1, also with
chars like euro; that is a good moment to improve the aring
Hans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
