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