References: <v02130500af7947c6b7bc@[130.237.37.137]>
Message-ID:  <199704152000.WAA08376@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <v02130500af7947c6b7bc@[130.237.37.137]>
Date:         Tue, 15 Apr 1997 22:00:11 +0200
From: Frank Mittelbach <Frank.Mittelbach@UNI-MAINZ.DE>
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: math fonts, etc
Status: R

Hans Aberg writes:
 > >Well, I think I could come up with my own set of three different lines
 > >that the discussion here follows or should or shouldn't follow.
 > >
 > >1. Implementation of the proposal of Justin Ziegler
 > >2. Design of standard TeX/LaTeX control sequences to access all those
 > >   glyphs.
 > >3. Discussion about missing glyphs, fonts, typographical traditions and
 > >   rules etc.
 >
 >   Frank Mittelbach will have to speak for himself, but I got the
 > impressions that he said that 2 and 3 indeed belong to the LaTeX3 project,
 > but not right now, because he first want to see a working version of 1, and
 > when that has arrived and been evaluated, one can reopen those other
 > discussions, as far as the LaTeX3 project is concerned. Right?

well definitely 2) and clearly we have a strong interest in 3)

but that does not mean that the math-font-discuss forum is not the
right one for both. After all this discussion list was and is a joint
effort between the LaTeX3 project group and the TUG working group on
math fonts.

as important as this subject is it might not be so important to
everybody having an interest in LaTeX. so I don't mind continuing
those discussions at least for a while there.

frank