Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:20:44 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> 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?
it needs fonts with as many glyphs as your documents need. unicode
has more than one plane, now, anyway.
but you're right: the potential for type designers is awesome.
> And isn't it quite sensible to distinguish between text and maths?
i was wondering about that, too. do you actually _do_ maths, torsten?
robin
|
|
|