Received: from webgate.proteosys.de (mail.proteosys-ag.com [62.225.9.49]) by lucy.proteosys (8.11.0/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id f18HgdH31621 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:42:39 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f18Hgdd14239 . for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:42:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C091F6.87A39180" Received: from mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailserver1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.30]) by mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f18HgcM21418 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:42:38 +0100 (MET) Received: from mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.57]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22293 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:42:38 +0100 (MET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (mail.listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.5]) by mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f18Hgb701638 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:42:38 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by mail.listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <13.5C2061F8@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:42:32 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 488726 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:42:33 +0100 Received: from ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (mail.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.234]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA26534 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:42:32 +0100 (MET) Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA26988 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:42:31 +0100 Received: from nag.co.uk (openmath.nag.co.uk [62.232.54.144]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f18HgPu27135 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:42:25 +0100 (MET) Received: (from davidc@localhost) by nag.co.uk (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) id RAA23570; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:42:00 GMT In-Reply-To: <14978.48288.789043.192865@mira.idris.fr> (gaulle@IDRIS.FR) References: <14978.48288.789043.192865@mira.idris.fr> Return-Path: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: default inputenc/fontenc tight to language Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:42:00 +0100 Message-ID: <200102081742.RAA23570@nag.co.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "David Carlisle" Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" To: "Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L" Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3757 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C091F6.87A39180 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Do you know that all Personal TeX products, since 1986, > are shipped with the mltex extension? whatever. I just said that we have had amost no end user queries concerning mltex features (or visibly using mltex extensions in the log files) > But is it enough (via an automatic processing) to produce a good font? But you didn't answer my question as to why should it be that vf files, in which accent position can be tuned for each character should produce worse results (in your eyes) than mltex primitives which do the same as the \accent primitive and position the accent just based on the metric information available to TeX? Y > i spoke about a new feature to implement in output drivers using vf > to give access to floating diacritics. Far from your preoccupation i > guess... If we were adding new features, then so much of TeX would be different! > Far from your preoccupation i guess. well no, not really. For LaTeX and also for XML typesetting, I am preocupied with making sure that the facilities to produce a good result are there. However I freely admit that in my own writing I rarely use accented letters and am happy to let those who do use them make the aesthetic judgements, which is why I'm interested in your opinion of the possibilities, but currently I haven't seen any arguments why mltex primitives are technically superior to vf (and that presumably was Knuth's opinion at the time, mltex predates vf, doesn't it?). David ------_=_NextPart_001_01C091F6.87A39180 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: default inputenc/fontenc tight to language

> Do you know that all Personal TeX products, since = 1986,
> are shipped with the mltex extension?

whatever. I just said that we have had amost no end = user queries
concerning mltex features (or visibly using mltex = extensions in the log
files)

> But is it enough (via an automatic processing) to = produce a good font?
But you didn't answer my question as to why should it = be that vf files,
in which accent position can be tuned for each = character should produce
worse results (in your eyes) than mltex primitives = which do the same as
the \accent primitive and position the accent just = based on the metric
information available to TeX? Y

> i spoke about a new feature to implement in = output drivers using vf
> to give access to floating diacritics. Far from = your preoccupation i
> guess...

If we were adding new features, then so much of TeX = would be different!


> Far from your preoccupation i guess.

well no, not really. For LaTeX and also for XML = typesetting, I am
preocupied with making sure that the facilities to = produce a good result
are there. However I freely admit that in my own = writing I rarely use
accented letters and am happy to let those who do use = them make the
aesthetic judgements, which is why I'm interested in = your opinion of the
possibilities, but currently I haven't seen any = arguments why mltex
primitives are technically superior to vf (and that = presumably was
Knuth's opinion at the time, mltex predates vf, = doesn't it?).


David

------_=_NextPart_001_01C091F6.87A39180--