X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil t nil]
	[nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil])
Date:         Tue, 27 Feb 90 18:48:00 MET
Reply-To: LaTeX-L Mailing list <LATEX-L%DHDURZ1@unido.bitnet>
Sender: LaTeX-L Mailing list <LATEX-L%DHDURZ1@unido.bitnet>
From: "Nico (Poppelier@Hutruu51.Bitnet)" <POPPELIER%HUTRUU51@unido.bitnet>
Subject:      Suggestions from Utrecht (IV)
To: Rainer Schoepf <BK4@DHDURZ1.uucp>
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 35

I just finished re-reading the article `A new font selection
scheme...' and noticed something that slipped by un-noticed earlier.
LaTeX's \boldmath is quite useless for physicists and mathematicians
and needs to be replaced.

Physicists and mathematicians tend to use bold symbols for vectors or
tensors. Putting an entire formula in bold-face type is quite rare,
both in my own work as a theoretical physicist, and in the books and
journals produced at Elsevier's.
What LaTeX lacks, in my opinion is a tool for the designer to typeset,
for example, vectors as boldface italic and higher-dimensional objects
(matrices, tensors) as boldface sans-serif.
This example is not just any example: it's precisely the Elsevier
convention for books and journal papers.

Summarizing:

  - LaTeX doesn't need two VERSIONS of math fonts that can
    only be switched OUTSIDE formulae
  - LaTeX needs a font selection scheme that allows a designer
    (user) to switch fonts INSIDE formulae


Nico