Message-Id: <199403111646.AA23957@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
In-Reply-To:  <01H9UEALHEEA8Y6OT4@MATH.AMS.ORG>
Date:         Fri, 11 Mar 1994 11:43:35 -0500
From: bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: AMS-LaTeX 1.1 patch for LaTeX2e
Status: R

peter dalgaard:
    What annoys me is that people seem to believe that it is necessary to have
    256-char math fonts before DC fonts can be used for anything except plain
    text. This simply isn't true,

this is correct, strictly speaking.  however, in my message i mentioned
two important facts that are relevant to ams interests:
 - we have a production environment in which we invite authors of
   our publications to submit electronic manuscripts prepared
   according to specific conventions, i.e. ams-latex
 - we are using high-resolution imagesetters to prepare camera-ready
   copy of our publications to send to the printer, and we do *not*
   have dc-compatible fonts (yet) for this equipment

if we were to "approve" a dc-ready version of ams-latex it would imply
to our authors that they are free to use it -- which is *not* true and
will not be true until our production environment is ready to process
dc fonts with no manual intervention.  it would not be responsible for
us to make this implicit promise and then have to tell authors that we
can't use the files on which they have lavished such care.  there is a
very great difference between a personal installation and one that is
set up for production under deadline conditions.  please believe me,
we would like all installations to be uniform, and will do everything
we reasonably can to reach that goal as soon as possible.
                                                -- bb