[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Alternatives to LaTeX
- To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
- Subject: Re: Alternatives to LaTeX
- From: Hans Aberg <haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:20:52 +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>
> > The second question, which I discussed, is how supplying the information
> > one would normally expect from TeX's full capacity. This takes quite some
> > effort to add, Robin Fairbairns said.
>You persist in equating features of Computer Modern with TeX itself;
>they are quite separate things!! It _is_ true that you need extra
>metric information to build good math metric files for TeX, but thats
>another issue. Y&Y add extra detail in the AFM files for Lucida Math
>for this reason.
I do not equate the features of Computer Modern with TeX itself, it is
you claiming I do that, but Computer Modern and TeX were originally
developed as a matching pair.
I think Frank Mittelbach put up some interesting articles on what general
pragmatics one use.
So do you think that the extra math fonts metric added in the Y&Y AFM
files for Lucida Math is sufficient for a good TeX or LaTeX font, I mean so
that people who normally just writes manuscripts could just flip it in?