On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 12:14:36PM -0800, Bill Janssen wrote: > OK, how about I put in two new fonts then, "sub" and "sup"? That will > keep us from eating another function code. The viewer can interpret > them as appropriate. I'll send you a patch...
Rather than doing it like that, I think it'd be better to seperate the fonts and the sub/super script. That way atleast if, for example, a formula is being written in bold, the subscript characters still appear in bold. I think we should define a specific function code. From the viewer's point of view these aren't TECHNICALLY fonts, it'll be easier for me to support becuase I wouldn't have to provide an exception rule (to normal fonts) whenever a sub/sup font appears. Plus when MORE fonts are added overtop, I'd have to keep that rule valid, and more problems could spawn. A function code is more robust and easier to support. I havn't looked at the database formatting in a while, but I think that just adding in a sincle function code should be sufficient for both super and sub scripts. Though an end code may be prudent. -- Adam McDaniel Array.org Calgary, AB, Canada
msg03944/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
