FMi on text symbol encodings

[Hilmar Schlegel]

Rebecca and Rowland wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >My very personal opinion is that some very exotic MF-only signs are not
> >very helpful for Tex's future to restrict the setup to the CM-style in a
> >world where Type1 font technology is practically accessible for
> >everybody.
> 
> Hmmm....  Not so sure about that - some people use computers that can't use
> any version of ATM or Ghostscript that's currently available[1].  In any

The intention is in the first line not to be restrictive - therefore I'm
in doubt about MF-*only* fonts: leave the choice to the users according
their needs.
Fonts per se have a much wider potential if available in Type1 format
(for Tex and elsewhere).

The point was actually: would a Type1 version of the symbols in TS1 help
to really use "the essentials"?

> Rowland.
> 
> [1]  There's an awful lot of people still using 68000 4MB RAM Macs, for
> example; I assume there's at least as many people still using equally
> obsolete MS-DOS boxes.

As I said: users should choose what suits their needs - Tex is just fine
everywhere.

Hilmar Schlegel