On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 19:57, Hans Hagen <pra...@wxs.nl> wrote:
> On 27-9-2011 19:52, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 19:44, Hans Hagen wrote:
>>> there is some fall back mechanism that does that but as soon as one
>>> defined
>>> his/her own typescript that can interfere
>> How should we define trypescripts to avoid interference then?
> A typeface definition normally has a matching monospace and math definition
> (so: ss + tt + mm or rm + tt + mm or in some cases rm + ss + tt + mm). Of
> course some relative scaling has to be considered then.

Do you want to say that we need an explicit definition of LM Math?

Just curious: how much information is missing/how much would would it
be if we would want to create a virtual math font by combining LM +
populating italic/bold/bold italic latin and greek math alphabets from
text font? Would that look horrible because of lack of information
about glyph metrics?

If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the 

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net

Reply via email to