...what's a good font for Math. I am tracking down some leads from the
MathML site, but nothing is sweeping me off my feet.
ken
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"Have you ever been in a relationship?"
Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
minister husband, when asked if the couple had
marital problems.
there is no such thing as a good math font (general). Math font may be
good only with connection to text font it was created for. If you are
OK with computer modern, fine - use TeX. but even then, it is not
perfect in type1 form - you will need commercial package.
Every math font I know is bad in some sense. I failed to construct my
own once. While typesetting math books professionally, I used hacked
version of cmr using a freely available package for TeX. Basicly you
specify properties from text font, and then a modified metafont is
generated for you. But even this was not an easy solution - lots of
hand work.
Ken Tilton wrote:
> ...what's a good font for Math. I am tracking down some leads from the
> MathML site, but nothing is sweeping me off my feet.
Choice of font is only one issue when typesetting maths. There are a
lot of subtle rules for layout which need information which is not
generally stored in fonts. TeX (which does the best job I know, and
which I suspect is still used for most properly typeset maths / hard
science books) understands a lot of these rules, and also stores a mass
of extra information in maths fonts. But even then, if you want to do
a reasonable job, you end up putting explicit corrections occasionally.
unfortunately the `default' TeX fonts (Computer Modern) are, well
`modern' - which doesn't mean modern, it means late 17th / early 18th
century - and many people don't like them much (including me). Modern
typefaces also tend to look (even more) grotty on low-resolution
devices, such as screens (though anti-aliasing may help). There are
other fonts which have the information TeX needs & thus should be
suitable for setting maths, but I'm not sure which are available.
I find it depressing that the quality of computer typography that I can
easily achieve is now lower than it was in the 80s.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>...what's a good font for Math. I am tracking down some leads from the
>>MathML site, but nothing is sweeping me off my feet.
>
>
>
> Choice of font is only one issue when typesetting maths. There are a
> lot of subtle rules for layout which need information which is not
> generally stored in fonts. TeX (which does the best job I know, and
> which I suspect is still used for most properly typeset maths / hard
> science books) understands a lot of these rules, and also stores a mass
> of extra information in maths fonts.
I have Dr Knuth right here, both "Computers & Typesetting" and "Digital
Typography". Pretty intense, so....
> But even then, if you want to do
> a reasonable job, you end up putting explicit corrections occasionally.
> unfortunately the `default' TeX fonts (Computer Modern)...
ah, so that is what cmex10.ttf, cmmi10.ttf, et al are.
> are, well
> `modern' - which doesn't mean modern, it means late 17th / early 18th
> century - and many people don't like them much (including me).
I love tradition! That is why I use car instead of first! :)
> Modern
> typefaces also tend to look (even more) grotty on low-resolution
> devices, such as screens (though anti-aliasing may help). There are
> other fonts which have the information TeX needs & thus should be
> suitable for setting maths, but I'm not sure which are available.
>
> I find it depressing that the quality of computer typography that I can
> easily achieve is now lower than it was in the 80s.
>
> --tim
>
Thx, Tim and everyone. I might have made clear that this is primarily
for the screen, with hardcopy needed but not elegantly so (kinda
backwards from the usual).
Well, I found this: http://www.ams.org/tex/type1-fonts.html
We'll see.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"Have you ever been in a relationship?"
Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
minister husband, when asked if the couple had
marital problems.
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 03:19:32 +0200, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thx, Tim and everyone. I might have made clear that this is primarily
> for the screen, with hardcopy needed but not elegantly so (kinda
> backwards from the usual).
>
> Well, I found this: http://www.ams.org/tex/type1-fonts.html
>
> We'll see.
>
> kt
>
Ugh! You are aware that thee AMS CM formts are direct translations of
the METAFONT output. In TeX there is a seperate language (metafont) which
draws fonts. The first time the computer sees the request for a font of a
given
size it grinds a bimap font of that size. What you are getting is bitmap
font's
for the most requested sizes.
For the best screen output you want Vector fonts (TrueType).
I would use:
1) Math ML
2) unicode with math extensions
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.1/ chapter 14.4
3) a vector font supporting the rendering of these codes like
support.wolfram.com/mathematica/systems/windows/general/latestfonts.html
(Note that some restrictions on distribution apply)
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: You all know everything...
Date:
Message-ID: <MTsYf.71$qO.12@fe10.lga>
John Thingstad wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 03:19:32 +0200, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thx, Tim and everyone. I might have made clear that this is primarily
>> for the screen, with hardcopy needed but not elegantly so (kinda
>> backwards from the usual).
>>
>> Well, I found this: http://www.ams.org/tex/type1-fonts.html
>>
>> We'll see.
>>
>> kt
>>
>
> Ugh! You are aware that thee AMS CM formts are direct translations of
> the METAFONT output. In TeX there is a seperate language (metafont) which
> draws fonts. The first time the computer sees the request for a font of
> a given
> size it grinds a bimap font of that size. What you are getting is
> bitmap font's
> for the most requested sizes.
(a) That covers a lot of sizes and...
(b) ...I have a lot of control over which sizes get used. But...
(c) ...good timing, looks like this will be ready in time for me to
ship: http://www.stixfonts.org/abt_geninfo.html
>
> For the best screen output you want Vector fonts (TrueType).
> I would use:
> 1) Math ML
> 2) unicode with math extensions
> http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.1/ chapter 14.4
> 3) a vector font supporting the rendering of these codes like
> support.wolfram.com/mathematica/systems/windows/general/latestfonts.html
> (Note that some restrictions on distribution apply)
>
Thanks, got all that. I guess what I need is in there somewhere.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"Have you ever been in a relationship?"
Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
minister husband, when asked if the couple had
marital problems.
Ken Tilton wrote:
> John Thingstad wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 03:19:32 +0200, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Thx, Tim and everyone. I might have made clear that this is primarily
> >> for the screen, with hardcopy needed but not elegantly so (kinda
> >> backwards from the usual).
Well, it sounds like whatever it is you're up to is a lot like the Lisp
Math GUI I keep dreaming about writing :-). Looks like everyone has
pretty much covered the options - I think we are all crossing our
fingers that the STIX distribution terms and quality are both what
we're hoping for. If your project is commercial you might consider
asking about licensing the MathType fonts
http://www.dessci.com/en/dl/fonts/ by DESSCI (the guys who do Equation
Editor for MS Word) - I don't know what their licensing terms would be
for something like that and I rather doubt their quality is anywhere
near TeX's but those do at least have the merit of lots of people
having seen them in Word before.
> > Ugh! You are aware that thee AMS CM formts are direct translations of
> > the METAFONT output. In TeX there is a seperate language (metafont) which
> > draws fonts. The first time the computer sees the request for a font of
> > a given size it grinds a bimap font of that size. What you are getting is
> > bitmap font's for the most requested sizes.
>
> (a) That covers a lot of sizes and...
> (b) ...I have a lot of control over which sizes get used. But...
> (c) ...good timing, looks like this will be ready in time for me to
> ship: http://www.stixfonts.org/abt_geninfo.html
> > For the best screen output you want Vector fonts (TrueType).
Just as another datapoint (non-lisp, sorry), the TeXmacs editor has its
own unique way of handling fonts:
http://www.texmacs.org/tmdoc/devel/source/fonts.en.html
In practice, this produces (to my eye, anyway) some of the nicest
on-screen output I have ever seen in an interactive editor, although
what its relative merits might be compared to METAFONT or Vector fonts
I couldn't say.
Cheers,
CY
"Tim Bradshaw" <··········@tfeb.org> writes:
> I find it depressing that the quality of computer typography that I can
> easily achieve is now lower than it was in the 80s.
What did you use in the 80ies?
'as
Alexander Schmolck wrote:
> "Tim Bradshaw" <··········@tfeb.org> writes:
>
> > I find it depressing that the quality of computer typography that I can
> > easily achieve is now lower than it was in the 80s.
>
> What did you use in the 80ies?
TeX. And of course I can (and do on occasion) use that now. So I
wasn't really telling the truth, sorry. What I meant, I think, was
that it's depressing that the quality I can get easily from a
documentation system which can deal with structure in an interesting
way is lower than it was. But even that isn't true, because, well,
it's not lower, and in many ways it's higher - for screen output for
instance, you can get really quite good results with HTML / CSS.
So I was just completely wrong really. What I want is a structured
system (*ML based) which has Lisp-style macros and can produce good
on-screen output *and* paper output of the highest quality. And I have
all but the last, so I should not complain.
I think I was just expecting flying cars, and I'm disappointed that all
we've got is cheap air travel.
--tim
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 17:47:09 +0200, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...what's a good font for Math. I am tracking down some leads from the
> MathML site, but nothing is sweeping me off my feet.
>
> ken
>
Well I still use LaTex. The miktex version.
It is quite the world on it's own but it is great fror
printing text. For text on the screen mathematica has developed
some vector fonts of it's own which are pretty good.
support.wolfram.com/mathematica/systems/windows/general/latestfonts.html
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
I also use LaTeX. The font used for the math is Computer Modern -
designed by Knuth and in my opinion it is still the best looking for
this purpose. Not sure how you get access to it outside the metafont
system though.
>>>>> "John" == John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> writes:
John> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 17:47:09 +0200, Ken Tilton
John> <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...what's a good font for Math. I am tracking down some leads
>> from the MathML site, but nothing is sweeping me off my feet.
>>
>> ken
>>
John> Well I still use LaTex. The miktex version. It is quite the
John> world on it's own but it is great fror printing text. For
John> text on the screen mathematica has developed some vector
John> fonts of it's own which are pretty good.
John> support.wolfram.com/mathematica/systems/windows/general/latestfonts.html
John> -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:
John> http://www.opera.com/mail/
--
Dr. John A.R. Williams
Electronic Engineering, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET
Tel: 0121 359 3621 x 4989 Fax: 0121 359 0156
www: http://www.ee.aston.ac.uk/staff/willijar
PGP key: 6606795A185C384C
"Ken Tilton" <·········@gmail.com> wrote
> ...what's a good font for Math. I am tracking down some leads from the
> MathML site, but nothing is sweeping me off my feet.
The world is waiting for http://www.stixfonts.org/ ;-)
From the site: "A beta test version of the STIX Fonts is tentatively
scheduled for release in April of 2006"
Marc
+ "Marc Battyani" <·············@fractalconcept.com>:
| The world is waiting for http://www.stixfonts.org/ ;-)
|
| From the site: "A beta test version of the STIX Fonts is tentatively
| scheduled for release in April of 2006"
Uh, right now it says
It appears that the beta will not be available for release until the
end of June. Assuming a successful beta, with only minor changes
necessary before the final release, we expect the STIX Fonts project
to be complete by the end of the summer.
After watching time slippage on the STIX fonts website for a year or
more, I'd say we should be happy to see anything before Christmas.
Let's hope it will all have been worth the wait.
--
* 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
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:47:09 -0400, Ken Tilton wrote:
> ...what's a good font for Math. I am tracking down some leads from the
> MathML site, but nothing is sweeping me off my feet.
>
> ken
Hmm, did you allready read:
A Survey of Free Math Fonts for TeX and LaTeX
Stephen Hartke
<http://www.tug.org/pracjourn/2006-1/hartke/>
And, even more impressive:
<http://home.vr-web.de/was/mathfonts.html>
That's a listing of most of the available Mathfonts
for (La)TeX (both free and commercial ones).
HTH, Ralf Mattes
Lucida Bright & Lucida Bright expert. Nothing else comes close. Was
available from www.yandy.com, but clearly that's no longer true! ;)
Anyone know where to get the Lucida Bright font set now?
Walter Kehowski
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:23:23 -0700, ·········@cox.net wrote:
> Lucida Bright & Lucida Bright expert. Nothing else comes close. Was
> available from www.yandy.com, but clearly that's no longer true! ;)
> Anyone know where to get the Lucida Bright font set now?
>
They (Y&Y) unfortunately went out of business. The US TeX user
group (TuG) took over the font licensing for the Lucida family.
The offer a (download only) license of the whole family as well
as a smaller set of fonts (there's actually an article about
Lucida in the last issue of TUG's journal [quoted in my last post]).
BTW, i assume you praise the LucidaMath fonts here?
Cheers, Ralf Mattes
> Walter Kehowski
Thanks for the info on Y&Y and Lucida Bright fonts. And I praise the
font set not just for its mathematics - which is breathtaking - but
also the entire text family. Every once in awhile I look over the fonts
at Micropress and consider a change, but then I come to my senses and
say, Nah! I've been using Lucida Bright in LaTeX since 1998 and I'd
rather fight than switch!
Walter Kehowski
Ken Tilton schrieb:
> ...what's a good font for Math. I am tracking down some leads from the
> MathML site, but nothing is sweeping me off my feet.
Why not html? Since 4.0 uni-code 16 is in use. Sure, the system needs a
font or the html-page needs a link to a font and the browser should
handle that all.
See http://www.unicode.org (lots of PDF for every usual sign)
Example:
∂ teilweise ∂ ∂
∃ existiert ∃ ∃
∅ leer ∅ ∅
∇ nabla ∇ ∇
∈ Element von ∈ ∈
∉ kein Element von ∉ ∉
∋ enth�lt als Element ∋ ∋
∏ Produkt ∏ ∏
∑ Summe ∑ ∑
− minus − −
∗ Asterisk ∗ ∗
√ Quadratwurzel √ √
∝ proportional zu ∝ ∝
∞ unendlich ∞ ∞
∠ Winkel ∠ ∠
∧ und ∧ ⊥
∨ oder ∨ ⊦
∩ Schnittpunkt ∩ ∩
∪ Einheit ∪ ∪
...
<head>
<link rel="fontdef" src="http://www.meine.com/fonts/myfont.pfr">
</head>
...
Have also a look at http://bitstream.com/ a commercial in font
solutions.
Or TrueDoc at http://truedoc.com/ for link able files with fonts in it
for webpages.
Last there is http://microsoft.com/typography/web/embedding/weft/
Once I have a shareware progy allowing to create your own font, works
nice (found on a StarTreck-page). There should be some availiable out
there.
stefan
+ Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com>:
| ...what's a good font for Math.
Personally, I use Fourier math fonts with Utopia text fonts these
days. Sample: http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/notes/fnal/fnal.pdf
--
* 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