X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
	["914" "Thu" "10" "April" "1997" "17:06:05" "-0700" "Marcel Oliver" "oliver@MATH.UCI.EDU" nil "19" "Re: Letterspacing (again)" "^Date:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil]
	nil)
Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1])
          by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id CAA24263; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 02:06:23 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <9.6A7496EE@listserv.gmd.de>; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 2:06:22 +0200
Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
          (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 123405 for
          LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 02:06:18 +0200
Received: from math.uci.edu (root@math.uci.edu [128.200.174.70]) by
          relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.7.6/8.7.4) with ESMTP id CAA02564 for
          <LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 02:06:13
          +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from rasha.math.uci.edu by math.uci.edu (8.8.5) id RAA29496; Thu, 10
          Apr 1997 17:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rasha.math.uci.edu by rasha.math.uci.edu (8.8.5) id AAA17991;
          Fri, 11 Apr 1997 00:06:06 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (X11; I; IRIX 6.2 IP22)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9704101238.AA08089@sgibulirsch6.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <334D806D.167E@math.uci.edu>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Date:         Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:06:05 -0700
From: Marcel Oliver <oliver@MATH.UCI.EDU>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: Letterspacing (again)
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 1920

Johannes Kuester wrote:
> I consider underlining text almost equally bad as a usual way of
> markup (the situation seems somehow to be italics vs. letterspacing
> and boldface vs. underlining), they both should be avoided whenever
> possible, yet there are still some cases where it is useful, and
> as TeX does make underlining possible, I see no reason to be so
> restrictive vs. letterspacing (okay, it is more difficult to
> do it properly, as special fonts seem to be needed)

Sorry for repeating myself.  I guess I can believe that
the optimal solution is to choose special fonts.  Yet
with my (very limited) understanding of fonts it seems
that there should be an algorithmic solution which
extrapolates the available kerning information which
comes very (and for some fonts maybe even indistiguishably)
close to the optimum?  Something like a poor man's
letterspace that's not so poor after all?

  Marcel