Sat 26 Apr 2008 02:45:18 PM UTC, original submission:
This is from Jacob Poon's report of 2007-10,
https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?106274
These are stylistic issues among those in Jacob's report that I haven't completely dealt with yet.
Mostly break down into two issues.
width issue:
Actually the glyphs even in ASCII vary in width: compare the diagonal slashes with the other letters.
But how exactly should the math symbols vary? Some of them look better a bit lighter, some better a bit heavier.
integrals terminators issue:
I don't know how to make integrals signs convincingly and adhere to the Sans convention of horizontal and vertical terminators. Needs thought.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angle (U+2220), Logical operators (U+2227-222A) have lighter font weights than the rest of the font. The bug does not exist in other font variants and families.
width issue
Integral (U+222B), double integral (U+222C), triple integral (U+222D), contour integral (U+222E) in all font variants have diagonal stroke terminators instead of horizontal or vertical, which does not fit the design in the rest of the font. The bug does not exist in other font families.
integrals terminators issue
Diameter sign (U+2300) has lighter font weights than the rest of the font. The bug does not exist in other font variants and families.
width issue
Half integrals (U+2320-2321) have diagonal stroke terminators instead of horizontal or vertical, which does not fit the design in the rest of the font. The bug does not exist in other font families.
integrals terminators issue
In addition, the glyphs do not reach their respective character cell vertical margins, which can cause equation editors to leave a gap when constructing large integral symbol.
does any application really do such a thing with this face?
anyway, I think I kind of dealt with this, except that the question of line spacing is itself very unclear.
|