Re: BSR CM type 1 arrows, StMaryRd, and RSFS

[Ulrik Vieth <vieth@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de>]

Sebastian Rahtz writes:

> Ulrik Vieth writes:
>> I suppose it may depend on which fonts Elsevier is actually using
>> in their books and journals.  If they are using MathTime and the
>> corresponding Script font, there is certainly no need to use RSFS
>> for Script.  If they are using CM, things might be different.

> i don't know, actually. I dont *think* any of our typesetters use CM
> or MathTime, except maybe those few that use TeX.

In that case I really wonder what else there is left you are you
using?  I mean the whole work of the Math Font Group (*) was based 
on the assumption that the choice of math fonts sets usable with 
TeX was limitied to a handful of families such as CM, Concrete, 
Euler, Adobe Symbol, MathTime, Lucida New Math, and Mathematica.

In that category, those extra fonts discussed here (RFSF, BBOLD,
StMary, etc.) might be seen as complementary to CM + AMS Symbols, 
whereas Adobe MathPi might be seen as complementary to MathTime.

>> It might also depend on whether authors of scientific papers really
>> have a say in which fonts the publisher chooses, and whether they
>> are actually offered a choice between Script and Calligraphic.

> good lord, what an idea...

> but thats the point. our SGML tags stuff as <sc>...</sc>, ie no
> different calligraphic. how its printed is typographic detail.

I can't find the details right now, but there was certainly some
discussion on math-font-discuss to the effect that some authors do
have a strong opinion on this topic, while the actual implementation
often boils down to using whatever is provided in a given font set.
For example, CM only has a Calligraphic alphabet, unless you add RFSF
for use as Script, while Euler only has Script.  MathTime per se
doesn't have a Script alphabet at all, unless you have MathTime Plus
or Adobe MathPi as well.  Lucida New Math has a Calligriphic alphabet,
which is very similar to what Mathematica calls Script, etc.

The distinction between Script and Calligraphic is very muddled,
but it exists.

> i was thinking less of the RSFS font than the extra symbols. 

Some of the extra symbols in StMary or WASY might be little weird, 
but others do seem to have a good use in some specialized fields.
I wish Alan or Jeremy could comment on which of the symbols in 
StMary they consider useful and which of them are experiments only.

Cheers, Ulrik.

(*) Homepage of Math Font Group: http://www.tug.org/twg/mfg/