From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/4379 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: S2P development Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: A new metafont (beta test) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:55:57 +0100 Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl Message-ID: <3AAF867D.4EF5823B@wkap.nl> References: <200103141416.PAA06942@bar.loria.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035395053 25344 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 17:44:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:44:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: tex-nl@nic.surfnet.nl, ntg-context@ntg.nl Original-To: "Denis B. Roegel" Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:4379 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:4379 "Denis B. Roegel" wrote: > > elogo seems larger than logo. Am I right? > I thought it would be upward compatible with logo. > I made my tests with a modified mflogo.sty and ulogo.fd. I should have been clearer about that. Try "metafont", instead of "METAFONT". The lowercase letters of elogo10 are identical to the uppercase ones in logo10. I needed to do it that way because I thought otherwise some characters got too cramped. (10/14 of 6pt => gives an x height of about 4.2pt. It's hard to fit a pen with dimension .66ptx/.60pty in that) Greetings, Taco