I just recently learned of Microsoft's Cambria+Math font. Having been long dissatisfied with the LaTeX standard packages and with the continued delay of STIX, I had high hopes for Cambria. That didn't last long. I am struck by the sloppiness of the design. For example, the lower-case roman alphabet looks like a mixture of two or three different typefaces. Strangely, the fonts I have (from the MS Office beta download) show differences from the sample PDF downloadable from the designer's web site.
What really bothers me, though, is that while Cambria+Math is clealy intended for producing documents with math in them, it does not take into account two problems that most fonts have when used to typeset math.
First, unlike writing in a natural language, glyphs can be adjoined arbitrarily. So the font must be designed such that no glyph intrudes into the columnar space of its neighbor or leaves gaping holes. A quick test is to diplay "QJqygf" in roman and italics. Also try the lower-case with sub/super-scripts.
Second, again unlike natural language, one often cannot identify a glyph just from context. So every glyph must be immediately and uniquely recognizable. Common problems are with the roman-lc vs. italic-lc "z" and with the Greek-ltalic-lc "nu" vs. the italic-lc "v".
I'd expect that most typographers are humanities types with little exposure to scientific literature. But I assure you that these issues do on occasion cause great vexation with typesetters and readers. For reference, fonts that I think handle these issues well are Caledonia, Palatino, and the Century family. Utopia is mostly OK.
Among type designers, is there ever discussion of the points I have raised?