Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!cs.ed.ac.uk!cs.edinburgh.ac.uk!ajcd
From: ajcd@cs.edinburgh.ac.uk (Angus Duggan)
Newsgroups: comp.text.tex,mail.uktex
Subject: Re: Font selection in AMSLaTeX 1.0
Message-ID: <2247@skye.cs.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 20 Nov 90 18:31:51 GMT
References: <7014@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Sender: nnews@cs.ed.ac.uk
Reply-To: ajcd@cs.edinburgh.ac.uk (Angus Duggan)
Followup-To: comp.text.tex
Organization: Edinburgh University Fried Brain Carry-out
Lines: 35

In article <7014@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, dvjm@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Murphy) writes:
> A gripe about AMSLaTeX 1.0;
...
I've sent David an answer to this; to summarise:

1) I've got a version of the new amssymb.sty which can be used from LaTeX.

2) This depends on how the new font selection scheme is configured. The style
file "nomargid.sty" disables the new syntax. Different maths versions are
easy to do, too.

Now my question:

I've just built and installed the AMSFonts 2.0, and have noticed problems with
some of the characters:

    Some of the Cyrillic characters (Zh, k) break up with our mode_def; the
  curves on others (dj, L/l, Lj/lj) do not seem to be very smooth.

  All of the maths extension symbols which have squares seem to have a couple
  of pixels missing at the lower left corner (giving a "rounded" look to the
  corner), as if they were drawn with a wide pen on a non-closed path.

  There are other minor points, such as assymmetries, which make it look as if
  the rasterization of these fonts has not been tuned.

Are these fonts "beta-release" status, or are they finished? Are these known
problems? 

A.
-- 
Angus Duggan, Department of Computer Science,	| I'm pink, therefore I'm Spam.
University of Edinburgh, JCMB,			| JANET:  ajcd@uk.ac.ed.lfcs
The King's Buildings, Mayfield Road,		| VOICE:  (UK) 031 650 5126
Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, Scotland.	| OR:  ajcd%lfcs.ed.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk