Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID:  <v02130503af7d150257d6@[130.237.37.109]>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Date:         Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:20:52 +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
Status: R

> >   The second question, which I discussed, is how supplying the information
> > one would normally expect from TeX's full capacity. This takes quite some
> > effort to add, Robin Fairbairns said.
>
>You persist in equating features of Computer Modern with TeX itself;
>they are quite separate things!! It _is_ true that you need extra
>metric information to build good math metric files for TeX, but thats
>another issue. Y&Y add extra detail in the AFM files for Lucida Math
>for this reason.

  I do not equate the features of Computer Modern with TeX itself, it is
you claiming I do that, but Computer Modern and TeX were originally
developed as a matching pair.

  I think Frank Mittelbach put up some interesting articles on what general
pragmatics one use.

  So do you think that the extra math fonts metric added in the Y&Y AFM
files for Lucida Math is sufficient for a good TeX or LaTeX font, I mean so
that people who normally just writes manuscripts could just flip it in?

  Hans Aberg