Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

From: Mark E. Shoulson <>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 18:06:48 -0400

On 10/10/2016 05:36 PM, Julian Bradfield wrote:
> On 2016-10-10, Michael Everson <> wrote:
>> Apparently it’s used to good effect in mathematics, though a great
>> deal of TeX material appears printed and has an obvious “TeX” feel
> It's for printing, so of course it appears printed. The obvious TeX
> feel is the result of using the default style, which arises from
> Knuth's personal taste in mathematical typesetting, with Lamport's
> (abominable) taste in structural layout on top. There are tens of
> thousands of journals and books produced with LaTeX, in hundreds or
> thousands of styles.
> Among publishers you may have heard of, Addison-Wesley, CUP, Elsevier,
> John Benjamins, OUP, Princeton UP, Wiley all use LaTeX for a
> significant proportion of their output. They're all professionals.
To me, the main "TeX" feel that TeX-printed things tend to share is
Knuth's distinctive Computer Modern font, not necessarily structure.
You can typeset amazing things in TeX (viz. the Comparing Torah that
Michael published for me); limitations there are mostly of your own making.

(I haven't really been able to keep up with this thread in general, though.)

Received on Mon Oct 10 2016 - 17:07:07 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Oct 10 2016 - 17:07:07 CDT