LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
From: David Carlisle <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:42:00 GMT
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (35 lines)
> 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

> 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?).