Herbert Voß

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#Em_dash It is by definition of width 1em, which is, of course not often used in fonts. It looks too wide. The en-dash is half the width of the...

@georgd: It has nothing to do with a "flame-war". It was a definition by the typographers in the 20th century or earlier. In the TeX world it is often compared...

For the Monofont I always use Scale=MatchLowercase (of the regular serif font) and FakeStretch=0.8. For the Libertinus it makes also sense to use Scale=MatchUppercase. However, the original dimensions of the...

``` \documentclass[a4paper]{article} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage[math=+ss08]{libertinus-otf} \begin{document} \[ k\symbfit{k} \] \end{document} ```

Why should it use bm? _All_ glyphs can be bold by optional setting.

I cannot see the benefits of such a math font. What we really need for mathematical typesetting is a complete bold version and a monospaced version of regular and bold.

There is no need for a Type~1 version. The future is `lualatex` with OpenType support and not `pdflatex`

I cannot see a problem with bold math. If a bold font exist, simply load it: ``` \usepackage[math-style=ISO]{unicode-math} \usepackage{libertinus} ``` if it didn't exists use ``` \usepackage[math-style=ISO]{unicode-math} \usepackage{firamath-otf} ``` which...

unicode-math does nothing else then defining macros for an access of all the glyphs. The font loading itself is done by fontspec. However, both is not needed, if one uses...

Again: It has nothing to do with unicode-math. You always get a problem if you load packages which modify font setting in the old (limited type-1 or MetaFont) way _after_...