28
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Fix broken formatting
"Anyone" can add items on this list, you can also upload figures and/ore use <context>embded \TEX\ code</context> to ilustrate your wish (see [[Help:Editing]]). This list of already fulfilled and rejected wishes is kept here: [[Fulfilled or rejected wishes for Latin Modern]].
== New items ==
* Ǝ for XeTeX
* assign "U+2423 OPEN BOX" to "visiblespace"
* move IJ ligature to language-specific features
== Kerning ==
**'''Jacko/Janusz (2004-04-16)''': ''Not touched yet.''
* [mailto:moho01ab@student.cbs.dk Morten Høgholm] (2004-04-16): It would be great if the <code>`solidus'</code> ‘solidus’ could have a fake lenght so that you wouldn't need to kern all the time; just like it is in the Adobe fonts.
== Single glyphs/ligatures ==
** '''Jacko/Janusz (2004-04-16)''': ''Hardly implementable to full extent. Knuth constructs plusminus by shifting plus so that its bottom touches the baseline and next places a bar (minus) on the baseline. This works for circa half of the LM family. In the rest of fonts the glyph would be too high (most notably in LMBX5, LMBX6, LMSSQBX8 and LMSSQBO8). We decided that the resulting glyph should not be higher than ascender height; if it would, we decreased its height par force.''
* [mailto:blacktrash@gmx.net Christian Ebert (2004-01-16)]: Some design dizes sizes are not displayed correctly in Acrobat Reader (at least version x86 linux 5.0.5), e.g., the ‘A’ in 10pt is printed below the baseline ([http://www.tug.org/tex-archive/info/lmodern/lm10pt.tex lm10pt.tex], [http://www.tug.org/tex-archive/info/lmodern/lm10pt.png lm10pt.png]); the ‘i’ in 11pt is printed above the baseline ([http://www.tug.org/tex-archive/info/lmodern/lm11pt.tex lm11pt.tex], [http://www.tug.org/tex-archive/info/lmodern/lm11pt.png lm11pt.png]).
** [mailto:andreas.lobinger@netsurf.de Andreas Lobinger (2004-01-16)]: This may occur due to wrong hinting.
** '''Jacko/Janusz (2004-04-16)''': ''Not touched yet.''
:The kerning is also an issue, in light of Knuth's original goal, described in the TUGboat 21(2): ''"the rendering [should] be the same in ten years [...] on everybody's machine it [should] come out the same, not only now but in the future."'' An ambitious goal, but at any rate, the smaller the kerning differences, the better.
* Morten Høgholm (2004-06-11): At this years BachoTeX I talked to Boguslaw about adding some more ligatures to Latin Modern, as we in Danish really need fj. At http://www.eur.nl/fw/staff/lokhorst/metafont.html a lot of ligatures are shown, although not all of them are particular nice. He promised to look at it. (When you have the standard fi and ij ligatures, you would also think there should be an fij, right? In polish they have a common flower named `fijolet' ‘fijolet’ making Boguslaw even more eager to add it... The Dutch use it in common words as `fijn' ‘fijn’ as well.) I guess this calls for a special fontencoding for Danish users. Harald Harders: There are some good ligatures. But for example the fff ligature is useless in German. You should be careful in adding new ligatures.
* Martín Darío Safe (2004-07-05): When using the lm package version 0.92, almost all occurrences of ‘ij’ and ‘IJ’ in your document will output ij and IJ Dutch digraphs. This seems inadequate for all European languages but Dutch. Also, this behaviour can prevent you from copying and pasting, searching, and indexing words containing ‘ij’ on PDF files for non-Dutch texts. More description about that topic at http://www.mdsafe.com.ar/ijdigraphissue.htm.
* Stephan Hennig (2005-03-08): In thread "Italicalized old-style figures" from 2004-09-08 on comp.text.tex there has been some agreement to the opinion CM's old-style figures do look ugly. Is it possible for LM to provide nicer old-style figures?<br>As I'm completely ignorant about font design I don't really know what makes CM's old-style figures look so boring. And I don't know if a complete redesign would be necessary to get nicer ones. Maybe just slanting the current old-style digits slightly could make the single digits look more individual and less obstrusive?
**[mailto:h.harders@tu-bs.de Harald Harders]: I think only a complete new design would help. For instance, the 1 and 3 normally really look different in lining and old-style figures which they don't for LM. Slanting is wrong in my opinion.
* Thomas Zell (2010-06-22): The hinting of the capital "W" seems to be broken for example in lmr10. Acrobat Reader paints the diagonal lines way too thick. I edited the font in FontForge and removed all of the horizontal hints which seemed oddly placed to me (leaving only one at the bottom) and the "W" looked fine. Could this be due to a bug in Metatype1?
== General things ==
C 66 ; WX 770.824 ; N B ; B 58 0 698 683 ;
C 67 ; WX 786.102 ; N C ; B 72 -22 713 705 ;
:Small caps are circa 10% wider; therefore, cmcsc10 and cmr10 cannot just be joined into a single [[OpenType]] font with small caps available through the `smcp' ‘smcp’ feature.
:* Peter Dyballa (2004-11-25): Will Robertson has prepared an OpenType version of the [[Latin Modern]] fonts (for usage with [[XeTeX]]): http://www.mecheng.adelaide.edu.au/~will/tex/
* [http://iki.fi/juhtolv Juhapekka Tolvanen] (2004-08-24): It would be nice, if [[Latin Modern]] would include also those fonts of Computer Modern Bright. Right now the only free (in the sense of freedom) version of Computer Modern Bright in Type 1 format is in that awfully big cm-super package and hfbright package.
[[Category:Fonts]]
