Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:26:19 +0200 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Halloechen!
Timothy Murphy <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> On Thursday 17 July 2003 11:10, Torsten Bronger wrote:
>
>> Surprisingly enough, TeX is the most serious limitation at the
>> moment (of course also because it's so vital). It's still the best
>> back-end for typesetting something, however its treatment of
>> so-called special characters, lack of true unicode support, and the
>> distinction text/math mode is really unfortunate.
>
> Wouldn't "true unicode support" require fonts with 64000 glyphs?
No. But something better than current totally inhomogeneous and
fragile solutions.
> And isn't it quite sensible to distinguish between text and maths?
XML doesn't do it and I find this very convenient. In (La)TeX, for
many characters you need different commands for text and math mode.
I'd love to have a typesetting system to which I could pass a say
'small Greek letter alpha', and it would just work in every context.
No font families, no encodings, no active/special characters, no
babel settings, and no modes to worry about. Wonderful ...
Tschoe,
Torsten.
--
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus
|
|
|