[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

**To**:*Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>***Subject**:**Re: math fonts, etc****From**:*Hans Aberg <haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE>***Date**: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:18:11 +0200- Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
- Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>

[Frank Mittelbach assures that the proposal covers all the features I was worried about.] Frank Mittelbach wrote: > > >well, restricted or not this is right now what a few million papers do > > >use :-) anyway, if you look closely at the draft proposal (p33) then > > >you see that MSP contains a full upper and lowercase script/cal > > >alphabet > > > > In fact, one can write mathematical manucripts using only a typewriter, > > and in fact some very good mathematicians do (or did) just that. So what > > people actually do use and get along with is not a good indicator for what > > to include in a typesetting program of the future. > >have you overlooked the smiley? what's the saying: a million flies >can't err? all i was commenting on here is that it isn't as bad as in >the days of typewriter and i think we can agree on that. My comment was not intended as polemics. As a matter of fact, several mathematicians I know refuse to use LaTeX, because it cannot provide the mathematical typesetting they think are needed. The situation improved with the apperance of AMS-LaTeX, and I switched to using LaTeX when that got better (less buggy) in 1993. >if you read carefully you find MS1 (point 14 page 35) Alan's arrow >construction set as a possible suggestion for inclusion If one reads this line carefully, it says For fun if there is place to spare: 14. Alan's arrow construction set: ? Will this comment reassure the guy, who do not use LaTeX for the lack of proper mathematical typesetting, and just need to quickly knock out a mathematical manuscript with say a few classical commutative diagrams (whic surely is not for fun)? No, I do not think so. The impression from this line is rather the opposite. :-) At 09:41 97-04-14, J%org Knappen, Mainz wrote: >This is specially to Hans Aberg: > >Please look thru the archives of math-font-discuss *now*. It will prevent >you from repeating old arguments and may enable you to contribute something >really new -- I don't pretend to know everything, but hearing old >discussions anew is quite boring. So, even if the math-font-discuss archives already knows-it-all, as far as the discussions conducted here, how can we assure that the hitherto disappointing LaTeX track-record in this area will not continue? Hans Aberg

- Prev by Date:
**Re: math fonts, etc** - Next by Date:
**Re: math fonts, etc** - Prev by thread:
**Re: math fonts, etc** - Next by thread:
**Re: math fonts, etc** - Index(es):