References: <01I4TPOG0TYAAM2JEY@MZDMZA.ZDV.UNI-MAINZ.DE>
            <199605181904.VAA03319@verdande.iesd.auc.dk>
Message-ID:  <199605190739.JAA01043@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
In-Reply-To:  <199605181904.VAA03319@verdande.iesd.auc.dk>
Date:         Sun, 19 May 1996 09:39:03 +0200
From: Frank Mittelbach <Frank.Mittelbach@UNI-MAINZ.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
Subject:      Re: More on fontdimensions
Status: R

Frank Jensen writes:
 > J"org Knappen asked:
 > > Therefore I'd like to ask, if this waste of space is tolerable, or whether
 > > the additional font dimensions should low numbers again. Since there are
 > > less than 13 (or even 22) additional dimensions, the dc fonts can't be
 > > mistaken for math italic or math extension fonts by TeX.
 >
 > I think it's tolerable.  We are talking about up to 15 font dimension
 > parameters of four bytes each -- 60 bytes in total (unless I'm
 > mistaken about the size of the quantities).  Compared to the number of
 > width, height, and depth dimensions for all the indidividual glyphs of
 > a font (yes, I know that not all glyphs can have different heights,
 > for example, but still ...), this is nothing to worry about.

I think the question to ask is: can a font to be used for math
extension or math italic be also used as a normal text font or vice
versa? In my feeling this is highly unlikely. starting from that it
seems a waste of space not to use the lower font dimens. We should not
forget that if J"org's example finds its way into, say, fontinst then
suddenly many text fonts will have those additional parameters and
thus the space wasted will be large after all.

so I would suggest using the lower dimen.

frank