Friday, July 8, 2005 Adam Lindsay wrote: > Giuseppe Bilotta said this at Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:11:01 +0200:
>>Thursday, July 7, 2005 Adam Lindsay wrote: >> >>> Me neither, but they look to be of good quality, but of lesser glyph >>> coverage (lacking AMS symbols) than the PX fonts. That said, the basic >>> three fonts are 99.8% glyph compatible with the existing PX support. >> >>So ConTeXt uses the PX family for math support when Palatino >>is in use? > That's my understanding of it, yes. > Reading more about it yesterday, that does indeed sound non-optimal. > Can you say what the requirements would be for improving Palatino math > support would be? Well, all things considered I would say that augmenting the mathpazo collection would be the best thing. > (And have you tried my little typescript hack?) Yes. It works perfectly, thanks :) > For those trying to follow along: > Young Ryu's pxmath: > * Current ConTeXt choice > + Complete AMS glyph coverage > - Some spacing bugs > - No longer supported, and deprecated in LaTeX world > Diego Puga's mathpazo: > * LaTeX's preferred choice (of free fonts) > + heavily tested spacing > - only 'basic' math support > I think some sort of hybrid is possible. Without relying on virtual > fonts, it would be necessary to make a choice between the two blackboard > options. Is it possible to set mathpazo as the default math font for Palatino, and setting px as the fallback? -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta _______________________________________________ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
