[Frank Mittelbach assures that the proposal covers all the features I was
worried about.]
Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > >well, restricted or not this is right now what a few million papers do
> > >use :) anyway, if you look closely at the draft proposal (p33) then
> > >you see that MSP contains a full upper and lowercase script/cal
> > >alphabet
> >
> > In fact, one can write mathematical manucripts using only a typewriter,
> > and in fact some very good mathematicians do (or did) just that. So what
> > people actually do use and get along with is not a good indicator for what
> > to include in a typesetting program of the future.
>
>have you overlooked the smiley? what's the saying: a million flies
>can't err? all i was commenting on here is that it isn't as bad as in
>the days of typewriter and i think we can agree on that.
My comment was not intended as polemics. As a matter of fact, several
mathematicians I know refuse to use LaTeX, because it cannot provide the
mathematical typesetting they think are needed. The situation improved with
the apperance of AMSLaTeX, and I switched to using LaTeX when that got
better (less buggy) in 1993.
>if you read carefully you find MS1 (point 14 page 35) Alan's arrow
>construction set as a possible suggestion for inclusion
If one reads this line carefully, it says
For fun if there is place to spare:
14. Alan's arrow construction set: ?
Will this comment reassure the guy, who do not use LaTeX for the lack of
proper mathematical typesetting, and just need to quickly knock out a
mathematical manuscript with say a few classical commutative diagrams (whic
surely is not for fun)?
No, I do not think so. The impression from this line is rather the
opposite. :)
At 09:41 970414, J%org Knappen, Mainz wrote:
>This is specially to Hans Aberg:
>
>Please look thru the archives of mathfontdiscuss *now*. It will prevent
>you from repeating old arguments and may enable you to contribute something
>really new  I don't pretend to know everything, but hearing old
>discussions anew is quite boring.
So, even if the mathfontdiscuss archives already knowsitall, as far
as the discussions conducted here, how can we assure that the hitherto
disappointing LaTeX trackrecord in this area will not continue?
Hans Aberg
