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

AboAmmar
  • 46,352
  • 4
  • 58
  • 127
mvs
  • 101
  • 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

1 Answers1

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.

Community
  • 1
Jim
  • 41