Giuseppe Bilotta said this at Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:11:01 +0200:
Thursday, July 7, 2005 Adam Lindsay wrote:
Me neither, but they look to be of good quality, but of lesser glyph coverage (lacking AMS symbols) than the PX fonts. That said, the basic three fonts are 99.8% glyph compatible with the existing PX support.
So ConTeXt uses the PX family for math support when Palatino is in use?
That's my understanding of it, yes. Reading more about it yesterday, that does indeed sound non-optimal. Can you say what the requirements would be for improving Palatino math support would be? (And have you tried my little typescript hack?) For those trying to follow along: Young Ryu's pxmath: * Current ConTeXt choice + Complete AMS glyph coverage - Some spacing bugs - No longer supported, and deprecated in LaTeX world Diego Puga's mathpazo: * LaTeX's preferred choice (of free fonts) + heavily tested spacing - only 'basic' math support I think some sort of hybrid is possible. Without relying on virtual fonts, it would be necessary to make a choice between the two blackboard options. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Adam T. Lindsay, Computing Dept. atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk Lancaster University, InfoLab21 +44(0)1524/510.514 Lancaster, LA1 4WA, UK Fax:+44(0)1524/510.492 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-