Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.9140DFDC@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:06 +0100 In-Reply-To: bbeeton's message of Mon, 6 Jan 92 22:42:14 CET <9201062143.AA18219@ufer.ZIB-Berlin.DE> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9140DFDC" Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) x-to: LATEX-L%DHDURZ1.BITNET@vm.gmd.de Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: re: fontdef issues Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 11:15:56 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Rainer Schoepf" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 497 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9140DFDC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Barbara asks: what effect might changing from a magstep to a "true-size" approach have on the compatibility between sites using mainly plain-based styles and those using mainly latex? Question: do plain based styles *really* use magsteps? More than LaTeX styles do? It seems to me that in both cases the reason was that no true-size fonts were available. Perhaps we are a bit more avantgardistic than the rest, but I don't think that people who restrict themselves to plain will stick to magsteps (especially since plain.tex itself does not use them). Personally, I hope and expect people gradually move to something like eplain, which offers them the facilities plain plain lacks. Ans for AMSTeX, it's under control of the AMS what happens, isn't it? do most of the people reading this discussion believe that everything can be done with latex, to the exclusion of writing job-specific macros even for certain specialized tasks? Yes, I believe that. After all, LaTeX is "only" a macro package. Besides, the main point of LaTeX is not to take away the power of TeX, but to hide its bad behaviour and syntax, and to focus on the logical structure rather of its visual one. if so, then does the non-latex use of tex matter, i.e., does this group, do other tex users care? I don't understand the question. Rainer ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9140DFDC Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable re: fontdef issues

Barbara asks:

   what effect might changing from a magstep = to a "true-size" approach
   have on the compatibility between sites = using mainly plain-based
   styles and those using mainly = latex?

Question: do plain based styles *really* use magsteps? = More than LaTeX
styles do? It seems to me that in both cases the = reason was that no
true-size fonts were available. Perhaps we are a bit = more
avantgardistic than the rest, but I don't think that = people who
restrict themselves to plain will stick to magsteps = (especially since
plain.tex itself does not use them). Personally, I = hope and expect
people gradually move to something like eplain, which = offers them the
facilities plain plain lacks. Ans for AMSTeX, it's = under control of
the AMS what happens, isn't it?

   do most of the people reading this = discussion believe that everything
   can be done with latex, to the exclusion = of writing job-specific
   macros even for certain specialized = tasks?

Yes, I believe that. After all, LaTeX is = "only" a macro package.
Besides, the main point of LaTeX is not to take away = the power of TeX,
but to hide its bad behaviour and syntax, and to = focus on the logical
structure rather of its visual one.

          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             if = so, then does the
   non-latex use of tex matter, i.e., does = this group, do other tex
   users care?

I don't understand the question.

Rainer

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9140DFDC--