[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Inverted (=reflected) N
- To: Ulrik Vieth <vieth@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de>, C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk
- Subject: Re: Inverted (=reflected) N
- From: "Y&Y, Inc." <support@YandY.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 07:52:02 -0500
- Cc: BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG, tech-support@MATH.AMS.ORG, math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk
Hi:
At 11:35 AM 98/02/05 +0100, Ulrik Vieth wrote:
>While I agree with the logic of this naming scheme, I'm afraid that
>the glyph names in existing AFM files aren't always systematic, not
>to mention that some glpyhs are named by meaning rather than form,
>i.e. "suchthat" rather than "epsiloninv" (actually "epsilonrot")
>or even "nabla" instead of "Deltainv". It is certainly possible to
>introduce a consistent naming scheme in our .etx and .mtx files,
>but that doesn't solve all problems.
Couple of points:
(1) It may be worth using the glyph names in
Lucida Sans Unicode, where they exist (of course, UNICODE
doesn't cover all the math glyphs you want, but quite a few...).
(2) Glyph names aren't quite arbitrary. Some software figures out
the appropriate UNICODE number using a fixed table of
glyph names (ATM for NT being the prime example).
Regards, Berthold.