J.Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I've added a new slide (page 6) > Achievements of LATEX (the first fifteen years) damning by faint praise. > By the way, when I pasted this title from the slide to this email, the > two 'fi' ligatures were transferred as page breaks! probably latex's fault. > Here's the URL for the EuroTeX talk: > <http://mathtran.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mathtran/trunk/docs/mainstream_tex/eurotex2009.pdf> i agree (with whichever of my colleagues it was) about the odd nature of your comparison of latex 3 with plain tex. what is it you have against numeric arguments? i've never bothered about it until the last weekend when i came across your complaints while catching up with my mail. > (Martin: Thank you for sending me off-list a definition for the XeTeX > logo. I found it ugly (the strong symmetry I found distracting), so I > commented it out of the source. I might change my mind about it > later.) i don't like it either; i suggested to jonathan kew that it ought to be possible to do better, but he reckons it's no more changeable than the ghastly tex and latex logos. > Further comments are welcome! you might try spelling nicola's name right -- i read it as a masculine name before i realised who you're talking about. the fact is that there are myriad latex guides, tutorials and the like, on the web. that you can only think of a couple that are missing is pretty remarkable, imo. i must get back to my latex-leaning documentation work... it would be nice to find people with the skills and the money to build something as good as context-garden, for latex. beyond me, for sure :-( robin