Johannes Kuester wrote:
> I consider underlining text almost equally bad as a usual way of
> markup (the situation seems somehow to be italics vs. letterspacing
> and boldface vs. underlining), they both should be avoided whenever
> possible, yet there are still some cases where it is useful, and
> as TeX does make underlining possible, I see no reason to be so
> restrictive vs. letterspacing (okay, it is more difficult to
> do it properly, as special fonts seem to be needed)

Sorry for repeating myself.  I guess I can believe that
the optimal solution is to choose special fonts.  Yet
with my (very limited) understanding of fonts it seems
that there should be an algorithmic solution which
extrapolates the available kerning information which
comes very (and for some fonts maybe even indistiguishably)
close to the optimum?  Something like a poor man's
letterspace that's not so poor after all?