0

Support for type-1 version of stix2 fonts just came out. I think it is a quite nice font.

However it seems that for stix2 fewer math alphabets are available than for stix (old version)

For instance:

If I use

\usepackage{stix}
\usepacakge{bm}

from

$\bm{\mathbb{C}}$ 

I do get a boldface \mathbb C BUT

if I use

\usepackage{stix2}    
\usepacakge{bm}

from the same command I do not get a boldface letter.

Indeed, in the documentation I see that in stix math alphabet \mathbfbb was defined but in stix2 it is not.

Anyone knows what is the situation about stix2?

Thanks Maurizio

  • There are no bold blackboard symbols in unicode, so imho you are out of look and you won't find them in stix2. – Ulrike Fischer Apr 21 '18 at 13:25
  • Thanks. But I thought I would find bold mathbb since in stix (earlier version) it was there. Why to take it away? – mvs Apr 22 '18 at 20:50
2

In the release note, it mentioned that

The stix2 pack­age pro­vides min­i­mal sup­port for us­ing the STIX Two fonts with ver­sions of TEX that are lim­ited to TFM files, Type 1 PostScript fonts, and 8-bit font en­cod­ings.

The Type 1 ver­sions are merely a repack­ag­ing of the orig­i­nal OpenType ver­sions and should not be viewed as in­de­pen­dent en­ti­ties. Some glyphs that are tra­di­tion­ally avail­able in TEX math fonts are not yet avail­able in the STIX Two OpenType fonts. In such cases, we have cho­sen to omit them from the stix2 pack­age rather than cre­ate in­com­pat­i­bil­i­ties be­tween the OpenType and Type 1 ver­sions. In ad­di­tion, while de­vel­op­ment of the OpenType ver­sions is on­go­ing, no fur­ther up­dates are planned to the Type 1 ver­sions of the fonts.

The \mathbb is the blackboard bold font. I am not sure why do you need a bold version of a bold font.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.