FMi on text symbol encodings

[Rebecca and Rowland]

At 3:32 am +0000 4/3/99, Hilmar Schlegel wrote:
>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"?

Ah!  I see - I missed the point completely, didn't I?  How about
considering TrueType as well? - in many cases, it's more convenient than PS
Type 1.

[snip]

Rowland.