| 
|  |  | The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to comp.text.tex as well.
 
 Greetings,
 
 there have been some discussion on the CyrTeX-ru mailing list about
 the proper appearance of the glyphs representing the ANGSTROM SIGN
 (U+212B) and the LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH RING ABOVE (U+00C5).
 
 When the font encoding contains the pre-built glyph(s) angstrom and
 Aring, there is basically no question - the decision on the proper
 look of these glyphs is under font designer's control. However, when
 the font encoding doesn't contain the pre-built glyph, TeX can
 construct it using the glyphs for LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A and the RING
 ACCENT which are often available.
 
 For example, the T1 font encoding contains Aring; but OT1 font
 encoding doesn't; so TeX can construct this glyph from A and ring.
 
 It is possible to just apply the ring accent to the letter A using the
 \accent command; but for some reason Donald Knuth decided to make the
 special command \AA to generate the Aring, which puts the ring accent
 close to the letter A (without a gap). Similar approach is used in
 LaTeX, which defines a \DeclareTextCompositeCommand for the
 combination "\r A" in ot1enc.def and ot4enc.def.
 
 Note that Jorg Knappen's EC fonts (T1 encoding) which contain the
 pre-built Aring glyph, put the ring close to A (without the gap), so
 the Aring looks exactly the same as \AA when constructed artificially
 when using the OT1 font encoding (CM fonts).
 
 I noticed that not only CM fonts use "gap-less" Aring, -- various other
 fonts (not TeX-related) contain "gap-less" Aring; while some other
 fonts treat Aring as A with the ring accent, and put the ring just
 like other accents.
 
 To see the difference of both variants, you can process this LaTeX file:
 
 \documentclass{article}
 \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
 \begin{document}
 
 \AA % default appearance
 % undefine the special \r{A} composite definition:
 \expandafter\let\csname \string\T1\string\r-A\endcsname\relax
 \AA % using just \accent
 
 \end{document}
 
 Some arguments for the special look of Aring (which I share):
 
 1) D.Knuth defined a special command for \AA, which puts ring close to
 A instead of using \accent
 
 2) the same approach is used in LaTeX in ot1enc.def and ot4enc.def,
 and LaTeX has in mind not only the CM fonts, but any font families,
 so these definitions are meant to be applied not only to CM fonts.
 
 3) The fontinst package contains some code to put the ring close to A
 (the glyph ringfitted defined in latin.mtx, and used in ot1.etx).
 (and this package is meant to be used for installation of "arbitrary"
 fonts)
 
 4) the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5 in the Online
 Encyclopedia states that:
 
 The letter "\r{A}" is often perceived as an "A" with a ring,
 interpreting the ring as a diacritic mark. However, the ring is not a
 diacritic. Rather, the letter developed as a form of semi-ligature of
 two consecutive "A"s.
 
 so this gives some basis to think that ring might be located not as
 plain accent, but closer to A.
 
 5) my memories about the look of the Angstrom sign in the books
 suggest that it should be written as plain TeX does it.
 
 Arguments against the close placement of the ring (from Alexander
 Lebedev and Lars Engebretsen) state that from aesthetic reasons the
 ring should be put on the same height as other accents. E.g., the
 Bitstream specification for developers of new fonts contains an
 example of Aring on page 5 and an example of accents on page 4:
 http://www.bitstream.com/categories/products/nfc/NFCSubmissions.pdf
 
 I have some questions to experts:
 
 1) what was the rationale to use the special definition of \AA - why
 not just use the \accent to put the ring over A?
 
 2) is this rationale only a design decision of the Computer Modern
 fonts, or it can be applied to other font families? I.e., shall the
 ring in the Aring glyph be put with a gap of the same widths as all
 other accents, or it is preferred to use "gap-less" Aring?
 
 3) should the glyphs for the LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH RING ABOVE
 and the ANGSTROM SIGN be the same in respect of the placement of
 the ring above A? (I.e., maybe the ring over A in U+00C5 should be
 put as an accent; but the preferred placement of the ring over A in
 the angstrom sign U+212B is without the gap).
 
 Many thanks in advance for your comments.
 
 Best,
 v.
 
 
 ================================================
 CyrTeX-ru mailing list Archives and Information:
 https://info.vsu.ru/Lists/CyrTeX-ru/List.html
 
 
 
 |  |