Halloechen! Timothy Murphy <[log in to unmask]> writes: > 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? No. But something better than current totally inhomogeneous and fragile solutions. > And isn't it quite sensible to distinguish between text and maths? XML doesn't do it and I find this very convenient. In (La)TeX, for many characters you need different commands for text and math mode. I'd love to have a typesetting system to which I could pass a say 'small Greek letter alpha', and it would just work in every context. No font families, no encodings, no active/special characters, no babel settings, and no modes to worry about. Wonderful ... Tschoe, Torsten. -- Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus