Re: [tex-fonts] Re: Strange cmsy10.pfb...
"Richard J. Kinch" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.tex.tetex.beta,gmane.comp.tex.tetex.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Reinhard,
> http://www.kammer.uni-hannover.de/~reinhard/fontsample/CMMI10-cmmi10.ps
>
> It is interesting to see the differences in /beta.
A very interesting checkplot. I'd like to have a copy of whatever
generated it.
I'm not sure what accounts for the different beta's, but I checked mine
against the MetaPost output, and it seems correct.
The plot does reveal slight enlargements in my automatic reduction of the
italic tips in xi, omega, vartheta, G, a, g, h, i, j, k, etc. The manual
(weedable) versions are correct but the difference is not striking and
so the automatic versions slipped through the visual checking process.
The better comparison than plotting GF might be overlaying the MetaPost
output that is the input to Metafog:
http://www.truetex.com/cmmi10_metapost.zip
Richard J. Kinch
http://www.truetex.com