Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!educ-isis!teexdwu From: teexdwu@ioe.lon.ac.uk (DOMINIK WUJASTYK) Newsgroups: comp.text.tex Subject: Re: THERE'S NO SCRIPT FONT...WHY NOT! Message-ID: <1991Feb22.202741.9729@ioe.lon.ac.uk> Date: 22 Feb 91 20:27:41 GMT References: Reply-To: teexdwu@ioe.lon.ac.uk (DOMINIK WUJASTYK) Organization: Institute of Education University of London Lines: 19 In article sullivan@msor.exeter.ac.uk (Rob Sullivan) writes: >The claim of TeX >to be designed specifically for technical typesetting seems severely >flawed when such a simple task of 'curly' H is beyond its grasp. I don't recall TeX making any claims. It is unfailingly modest and even apologetic when it speaks to me. About your curly "H", I assume you've tried $\cal H$? Finally, the fact that TeX etc. is generally found to be such a rich environment is that when people need something specific and find it is unavailable, they knuckle down and produce it. For example, Neenie Billawala made the curly H that you get from the above command (and the rest of the calligraphic upper case alphabet). The tools are all there! Metafont is calling you! Let us have your calligraphic font soon! Dominik