Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID:  <v02130508af7a7680e6a8@[130.237.37.92]>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Date:         Wed, 16 Apr 1997 14:35:54 +0200
From: Hans Aberg <haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE>
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: Alternatives to LaTeX (Was Some comments...)
Status: R

At 12:34 97-04-16, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> >   I think Springer Verlag uses TeX in part because it produces the right
>
>a curious company to cite; their TeXery is often appalling,
>and their use of latex209 + nfss1 frankly immoral

At 12:26 97-04-16, Robin Fairbairns wrote:

>>.. So I think simply using rescaled fonts would produce inferior
>> technical typesetting.
>
>Nevertheless, it's what almost everyone does do.  There are in
>principle mechanisms for optical scaling type 1 multiple-master fonts,
>but (apart from Adobe) I don't know many people who use them.
...
>>   So I do not think this is a minor issue, when it comes down to TeX; this
>> is in fact something that really makes TeX typesetting.
>
>It *is* a minor issue by comparison with the matching-fonts issue,
>IMO.

  So is the suggestion that the LaTeX3 project should start use rescaled
fonts, just because everybody else is doing so, or in favour of a fonts
matching issue, or because the Springer typesetting is appaling in some
other respects?

  After all, most people do not use the equations of general relativity in
their daily life, but does that mean that technical journals should stop
publishing such material? :-)

  Hans Aberg