I wish I knew more about STIX
Will Robertson
From the latest STIX report:
"it appears that the best compromise solution will increase the
number of fonts to about 42. Each font will have only one Unicode
value for each glyph in the font. This approach is still being
refined, and further information will be provided when the final
decision is made."
42 different fonts?!? I'm very interested to see what they're up to.
Can't wait for the beta.
It sounds like there will be a number of "variant forms" that perhaps
should be encompassed by OpenType features but the industry is too
slow to be able to actually implement (unlike XeTeX).
I would also guess that the things we've been thinking about in terms
of bold versions and glyphs will be accommodated by the range of fonts.
Then it becomes a matter of working out how to support both the STIX
fonts and more "regular" ones such as Cambria Math.
Will
Jonathan Kew
> From the latest STIX report:
> "it appears that the best compromise solution will increase the
> number of fonts to about 42. Each font will have only one Unicode
> value for each glyph in the font. This approach is still being
> refined, and further information will be provided when the final
> decision is made."
>
> 42 different fonts?!? I'm very interested to see what they're up to.
> Can't wait for the beta.
Ugh.... that sounds like a mess -- splitting the OT fonts up in a
similar way to legacy TeX fonts???
> Then it becomes a matter of working out how to support both the STIX
> fonts and more "regular" ones such as Cambria Math.
Rather than trying to do this at the TeX macro level, I'd prefer to
work out how to merge the 42 STIX fonts into a Cambria-compatible form.
I suppose once we see what they're doing, maybe I should offer to
repackage them into a proper OpenType package that'll work "out of
the box" with both Word 2007 and XeTeX. Other software should
eventually catch up. Let's not spend a lot of time and effort
supporting interim hacks.
JK
Chris Rowley
Jonathan Kew wrote:
> > 42 different fonts?!? I'm very interested to see what they're up to.
> > Can't wait for the beta.
>
> Ugh.... that sounds like a mess -- splitting the OT fonts up in a
> similar way to legacy TeX fonts???
>
I know this sounds crazy to most readers of this group but 8-bit TeX is
not just a legacy system, espcially for maths. All the big players in
actual use/support of LaTeX for technical work have no intention of
supporting non-8-bit TeX as anything but an experimental system; and
many have told me that it is a waste of my time working with non-8-bit
maths (don't worry too much: everyone has told me that about much of my
career but it is amazing how many ideas I have introduced have turned
out to be a Good Idea(TM) 20 or so years later). Therefore a lot of
resources are going into 8-bit STIX fonts whether we think it is mad or
not.
My understanding is that the glyphs will also be avaiable in one big
font but possibly without any of the math tables etc that Cambria
provides. We may need to make a Cambria-like font from this, as you
are perhaps offering:
> I suppose once we see what they're doing, maybe I should offer to
> repackage them into a proper OpenType package that'll work "out of
> the box" with both Word 2007 and XeTeX. Other software should
> eventually catch up. Let's not spend a lot of time and effort
> supporting interim hacks.
My colleagues have started looking seriously at the maths in Word2007
but they are not at all impressed.
Can we Ross or Will get a copy to look at? I think it is silly to try
to supprt a basically bad system.
But I am not entirely down on Microsoft right now having just
discovered Microsoft Maths, part of their student pack.
chris
Jonathan Kew
>
>
> Jonathan Kew wrote:
>
>> > 42 different fonts?!? I'm very interested to see what they're up
>> to.
>> > Can't wait for the beta.
>>
>> Ugh.... that sounds like a mess -- splitting the OT fonts up in a
>> similar way to legacy TeX fonts???
>>
>
> I know this sounds crazy to most readers of this group but 8-bit
> TeX is
> not just a legacy system, espcially for maths.
Yes, I realize that; but for that purpose, they should be delivering
a collection of .pfb (Type 1) fonts, with AFMs, TFMs, and all that.
That's what the 8-bit TeX world wants, not .otfs. It's the idea of
having a whole slew of *OpenType* fonts split up by math alphabets or
symbol sizes or whatever that appalls me.
> My colleagues have started looking seriously at the maths in Word2007
> but they are not at all impressed.
> Can we Ross or Will get a copy to look at? I think it is silly to try
> to supprt a basically bad system.
Whether or not the maths in Word 2007 is any good (which probably
depends, in part at least, on the level of maths you need; but I
haven't seen it, so don't have any real opinion), the key point is
that there is now a de facto standard for how to package a complete
set of Unicode-conformant math glyphs and all the metric information
needed by TeX's math layout process into a single OpenType font. And
there will be a larger "market" for such fonts (free or otherwise)
than there has been for purely TeX-dependent math font sets, and
therefore eventually a greater selection of math-enabled fonts for us
all to use.
Personally, I'm not interested in "supporting" Word 2007's math
features, as I don't expect to use Word 2007 any time in the
foreseeable future. But I *am* interested in supporting the Cambria
Math font, which will soon be on many thousands of computers, and
other fonts that follow the same standard.
And as far as STIX is concerned, of course they need to support
legacy 8-bit TeX systems. But (IMO) they would be foolish *not* to
support W2007's math features as well, given that it *will* be a
widespread system, regardless of its merits or otherwise.
JK
Chris Rowley
Jonathan
> >
> > I know this sounds crazy to most readers of this group but 8-bit
> > TeX is
> > not just a legacy system, espcially for maths.
>
> Yes, I realize that; but for that purpose, they should be delivering
> a collection of .pfb (Type 1) fonts, with AFMs, TFMs, and all that.
> That's what the 8-bit TeX world wants, not .otfs. It's the idea of
> having a whole slew of *OpenType* fonts split up by math alphabets or
> symbol sizes or whatever that appalls me.
Sorry: I had not realised that is what they claim. I wonder if they
really mean that?
I wonder if anyone really knows:-(.
>
> > My colleagues have started looking seriously at the maths in Word2007
> > but they are not at all impressed.
> > Can we Ross or Will get a copy to look at? I think it is silly to try
> > to supprt a basically bad system.
>
> Whether or not the maths in Word 2007 is any good (which probably
> depends, in part at least, on the level of maths you need; but I
> haven't seen it, so don't have any real opinion),
No, it was not that. It was weird interfaces and errors that were
causing problems.
I shall find out more.
> the key point is
> that there is now a de facto standard for how to package a complete
> set of Unicode-conformant math glyphs and all the metric information
> needed by TeX's math layout process into a single OpenType font. And
> there will be a larger "market" for such fonts (free or otherwise)
Only if applications start to use them: individuals are not going to
bother.
> than there has been for purely TeX-dependent math font sets, and
> therefore eventually a greater selection of math-enabled fonts for us
> all to use.
Why???
>
> Personally, I'm not interested in "supporting" Word 2007's math
> features, as I don't expect to use Word 2007 any time in the
> foreseeable future. But I *am* interested in supporting the Cambria
> Math font, which will soon be on many thousands of computers, and
> other fonts that follow the same standard.
Definitely.
>
> And as far as STIX is concerned, of course they need to support
> legacy 8-bit TeX systems. But (IMO) they would be foolish *not* to
> support W2007's math features as well, given that it *will* be a
> widespread system, regardless of its merits or otherwise.
>
That may be difficult if no one can figure out how (or if) Word2007
math works.
We have got Microsoft to admit that no one in the UK has the faintest
idea about whay it is there and how it works.
But, as you say: not your problem.
chris