Message-ID:  <E0wHU6M-0003Zq-00@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Wed, 16 Apr 1997 14:35:54 +0200." 
              <v02130508af7a7680e6a8@[130.237.37.92]>
Date:         Wed, 16 Apr 1997 13:46:16 +0100
From: Robin Fairbairns <Robin.Fairbairns@CL.CAM.AC.UK>
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

>   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?

What a dotty suggestion!  I merely claimed that we have other more
pressing things to worry about than whether or not Fred Bloggs chooses
to use linearly-scaled fonts with LaTeX.  Sebastian did the same.

Michael Downes has since added that maths requires lots of use of
small fonts, and therefore implies a need for optical scaling.  I
presume he means `optically-scaled maths fonts' (or are there effects
on the text of mathematical publications that I wot not of?).  Which
would seem to me to imply that one may not use anything but CMR (or
publishers' private fonts, about which I know essentially nothing
apart from their existence) for maths...

Robin Fairbairns