stix fonts
Joris
"more problems" were "reported on the final tests." Not surprising
given the history, but wow.....
Benoit RIVET
Please remember that, quoting <http://www.stixfonts.org/> :
> The Stix project has the potential to solve a problem that dates
> back to the 1400's when Gutenberg first conceived of movable types
> New York Times (Nov. 7, 2002)
I understand that you'd love to be able to play with the Stix fonts
soon, but be patient : we may have to wait another 600 years before the
problem is solved by the Stix project.
Robin Fairbairns
but the problem that gutenberg solved (fonts for things you pay for)
has already been solved, by microcrush -- istm that their to-pay-for
fonts are quite adequate.
so perhaps (just *perhaps*) we won't have to wait for 600 years, but
who can tell? ...
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
Philipp Stephani
It depends on what the problem exactly is. Cambria Math is already
there and can be used in Word and ConTeXt, and perhaps, in ten years or
so, also in LaTeX. So the problem is essentially solved.
--
Change “LookInSig” to “tcalveu” to answer by mail.
Harald Hanche-Olsen
> Given that the Stix fonts page has not been updated, I deduce that
> "more problems" were "reported on the final tests." Not surprising
> given the history, but wow.....
No, you cannot deduce anything at all from the lack of updates (except
one thing: the web site has never been updated earlier than stated).
Perhaps the technical review committee needs more time. There are lots
of other possibilities. Even if there are technical problems, they could
well be minor. Like nothing they couldn't easily fix before Christmas
and still have time left over for buying presents.
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- It is undesirable to believe a proposition
when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.
-- Bertrand Russell
Guenter Milde
There is also the free Asana Math font and the (experimental)
unicode-math package for XeTeX.
I am curious to see which project will be published in a "ready" state
first: STIX or LaTeX 3.
Günter
Philipp Stephani
I guess it will be STIX. At least they have already released a beta
version, while LaTeX 3 has been in development since 1988 (around twenty
years ago!). The LaTeX 3 team have already done a lot of great and
useful things (see the expl3 package), but I think that is perhaps only
a few percent of what still needs to be done. At the moment, I can't
see how a working version of LaTeX 3 (one that does not depend on
LaTeX 2e) should come to life in the forseeable future.
Robin Fairbairns
(ignoring the suggestion that expl3 isn't "ready" ... but remembering
that expl3 isn't the final product...)
stix seems to have a vast capacity for procrastination, but
potentially rather large resources. (note that i don't know what
their resources actually _are_.)
latex 3 just has rather small coding resources.
it's just possible that the latex 3 tortoise will beat the stix hare,
but i shan't place any money on the proposition.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
David Kastrup
> stix seems to have a vast capacity for procrastination, but
> potentially rather large resources. (note that i don't know what
> their resources actually _are_.)
>
> latex 3 just has rather small coding resources.
>
> it's just possible that the latex 3 tortoise will beat the stix hare,
> but i shan't place any money on the proposition.
LaTeX 3 is immune to "potentially rather large resources" because the
kind of horse you can hope to complete this course with is no longer
bred.
In contrast, throwing money at Stix might still have effects.
Dinkel is a kind of primitive wheat grain that is more often than not
grown organically. Because it is mostly pointless to throw chemical
fertilizers and herbicides and insecticides on it as they don't
significantly change the yield. I don't even think that bullshit will
do much.
There probably was a point to this posting.
--
David Kastrup
UKTUG FAQ: <URL:http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html>
George White
> benoit...@libre.fr.invalid (Benoit RIVET) writes:
>> Joris <pin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Given that the Stix fonts page has not been updated, I deduce that
>>> "more problems" were "reported on the final tests." Not surprising
>>> given the history, but wow.....
>>
>> Please remember that, quoting <http://www.stixfonts.org/> :
>>
>>> The Stix project has the potential to solve a problem that dates
>>> back to the 1400's when Gutenberg first conceived of movable types
>>> New York Times (Nov. 7, 2002)
>>
>> I understand that you'd love to be able to play with the Stix fonts
>> soon, but be patient : we may have to wait another 600 years before the
>> problem is solved by the Stix project.
>
> but the problem that gutenberg solved (fonts for things you pay for)
> has already been solved, by microcrush -- istm that their to-pay-for
> fonts are quite adequate.
The vast majority of documents encountered by European and N. American
users pose relatively simple problems for fonts and many are willing to
accept less than beautiful results. There will always be a few documents
that need glyphs not available in existing fonts or for which the people
paying the bills expect higher standards.
TeX and derivatives would not exist if there was not a vast pool of
authors who will never be satisfied with the status quo (e.g., who
will always see things that could be improved).
> so perhaps (just *perhaps*) we won't have to wait for 600 years, but
> who can tell? ...
> --
> Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
The main contribution to date from the STIX project has been the changes
that were made to the Unicode Standard (Beeton, Freytag, and Sargent,
2008, Unicode Support for Mathematics, Unicode TR#25). Maybe that should
be enough!
The economy is not what it was when STIX was started. The bill payers who
started STIX may be less willing to spend the money it would take to
switch production systems to unicode, or maybe some are using unicode but
have found that Cambria Math meets their needs and have lost interest in
the STIX fonts.
In the spirit of making better documents, what specific problems exist
with fonts that are available now (Cambria, Asana, ...)?
I know there are objections to particular details in the Unicode standard,
which of these show stoppers for real documents?
What journals are being published using Cambria that we can go look at in
the library?
--
George White <aa...@chebucto.ns.ca> <gn...@acm.org>
189 Parklea Dr., Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia B3Z 2G6
Martin Berggren
>
> LaTeX 3 is immune to "potentially rather large resources" because the
> kind of horse you can hope to complete this course with is no longer
> bred.
>
> In contrast, throwing money at Stix might still have effects.
>
> Dinkel is a kind of primitive wheat grain that is more often than not
> grown organically. Because it is mostly pointless to throw chemical
> fertilizers and herbicides and insecticides on it as they don't
> significantly change the yield. I don't even think that bullshit will
> do much.
>
> There probably was a point to this posting.
>
> --
> David Kastrup
> UKTUG FAQ: <URL:http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html>
And I say, about the funniest post in a long time...
Joris
being ported to TeX. Who does the porting, how hard would that be,
and how long would it take?
Harald Hanche-Olsen
> Apparently the stix fonts will be available for Word first, before
> being ported to TeX. Who does the porting, how hard would that be,
> and how long would it take?
This has been discussed on and off in the distant past. Try to search
comp.text.tex for "stix" on google groups.
E.g., Will Robertson 2007-11-05:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.text.tex/msg/2f3ed2961a160357
The LaTeX support is being done at the moment and is due out in a
couple of months. It wouldn't be very productive to roll your own
support, unless it was to develop some sort of unicode->TeX maths font
re-encoding tool.
Apparently the work is done by one Taco Hoekwater at Kluwer.
We must hope that he is not retired by now.
Harald Hanche-Olsen
> Apparently the stix fonts will be available for Word first, before
> being ported to TeX. Who does the porting, how hard would that be,
> and how long would it take?
Another much anticipated use for the stix fonts is in web browsers.
It might be just what is needed to finally make mathml come of age.
Joris
Well, he's one of the guys developing both Context and Luatex plus
he's the president of the Dutch TeX users group, so I think we're ok.
Robin Fairbairns
>On Jan 20, 11:03=A0am, Harald Hanche-Olsen <han...@math.ntnu.no> wrote:
>> + Joris <pin...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Apparently the stix fonts will be available for Word first, before
>> > and how long would it take?
>>
>> This has been discussed on and off in the distant past. Try to search
>> comp.text.tex for "stix" on google groups.
>>
>> =A0http://groups.google.com/group/comp.text.tex/msg/2f3ed2961a160357
>>
>> =A0 The LaTeX support is being done at the moment and is due out in a
>> =A0 couple of months. It wouldn't be very productive to roll your own
>> =A0 support, unless it was to develop some sort of unicode->TeX maths fon=
>t
>> =A0 re-encoding tool.
>>
>> Apparently the work is done by one Taco Hoekwater at Kluwer.
>> We must hope that he is not retired by now.
>
>he's the president of the Dutch TeX users group, so I think we're ok.
i know taco has infinite capacity for work, but does this huge
workload not perhaps mean that he might take some time over the job?
(and for that matter, why taco rather than someone primarily skilled
in latex?)
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
Philipp Stephani
> + Joris <pin...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Apparently the stix fonts will be available for Word first, before
>> being ported to TeX. Who does the porting, how hard would that be,
>> and how long would it take?
>
> This has been discussed on and off in the distant past. Try to search
> comp.text.tex for "stix" on google groups.
>
> E.g., Will Robertson 2007-11-05:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.text.tex/msg/2f3ed2961a160357
>
> The LaTeX support is being done at the moment and is due out in a
> couple of months. It wouldn't be very productive to roll your own
> support, unless it was to develop some sort of unicode->TeX maths font
> re-encoding tool.
>
> Apparently the work is done by one Taco Hoekwater at Kluwer.
> We must hope that he is not retired by now.
If it's really Taco Hoekwater, then we can expect ConTeXt support a few
days after the fonts are released!
Jim Diamond
(Jim ducks and runs.)
:-)
Jim