[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: bkph@ai.mit.edu*Subject*: Re: BSR CM type 1 arrows, StMaryRd, and RSFS*From*: Ulrik Vieth <vieth@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de>*Date*: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:42:45 +0100*Cc*: s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk, support@YandY.com, lcs@topo.math.u-psud.fr, rasmith@arete.com, tex-fonts@csc-sun.math.utah.edu*Flags*: 000000000000*In-Reply-To*: "bkph@ai.mit.edu"'s message of Tue, 10 Mar 1998 09:59:52 -0500

>>> 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. > I think you are assuming that people use TeX. Many of the big publishers > do not. You can tell if you look at electronic journals. Many of them > use Adobe Universal Greek + Pi and fonts like that. As for physics journals, I don't know exactly what Elsevier or AIP are using, but I do know that IOP uses MathTime. Unfortunately, they apparently tried to save money on buying just MathTime without MathTime Plus, so they resort to mixing Times/MathTime with CM bold math italics, CM calligraphic, and a few CM-style AMS symbols. Not exactly an example of high typographical standards, but apparently good enough to get away with for mass-producing two dozen or so print journals and the corresponding electronic journal articles. Cheers, Ulrik.

- Prev by Date:
**Re: BSR CM type 1 arrows, StMaryRd, and RSFS** - Next by Date:
**Re: BSR CM type 1 arrows, StMaryRd, and RSFS** - Prev by thread:
**Re: BSR CM type 1 arrows, StMaryRd, and RSFS** - Next by thread:
**Type1 on Macs** - Index(es):