[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: questions & comments
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: questions & comments
- From: Allin Cottrell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 08:45:34 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <199807071208.OAA19077@mozart.ujf-grenoble.fr>
On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Thierry Bouche wrote:
> » This is particularly worthwhile if you're using
> » oldstyle numerals (fontinst "j") in the base virtual font,
> » because those numerals were not designed to appear in
> » superscripts, and look quite wrong when used that way (e.g. as
> » footnote markers).
> I fully disagree with this point of vue.
OK, I should be less dogmatic. I haven't seen OsFs used as
footnote markers in old books, but that doesn't mean it never
> You should say _some_ well-typest books... others don't. there has
> been a time where the only availale digits were hanging ones.
In books of that time, would footnotes not generally have been
indicated by symbols rather than numerals?
> You're not willing to use only small caps for superior
> letters,aren't you?
I find that I have much less use for superior letters than
superior numerals. The superior letters in the expert sets I've
seen are regular lower-case glyphs (but not a full alphabet).
> ...it's always tedious in tex to use digits that are not at
> their ascii location...
That was the point of my routine with superiors.etx: the
numerals are accessed at their ASCII locations rather than
having to use special macros.
Department of Economics
Wake Forest University, NC