At 21.26 +0100 0-09-28, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
>i'm afraid you're wrong.  \we (before my time) set up this list as a
>means to discuss the future of latex in the development of latex 3.
>some time back, i suspect before you were on the scene, there was
>another mailing list for discussing the development of latex 2e; that
>list has now been closed --- the decisions about what's to be in 2e
>have all been made long since.  anything that's definitely missing
>from the conception of of latex2e may be a candidate for a bug report
>(category: change request),

I remember now: it took so long time for \them at arriving at LaTeX3 that I
forgot about it. :-) I also remember the old LaTeX2e list that somehow was
dismissed.

>if you want a more nearly rational encoding, i would strongly
>recommend investigating ly1, for which a full set of bits and pieces
>is to be found on the archives, written for and placed in the public
>arena by[*], y&y.

Thank you for the pointer.

But actually, I am more curious about what Taco Hoekwater will come up
with, the new fonts defined for the Unicode/STIX submission (as discussed
in the math fonts list).

  Hans Aberg