[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: Laurent Siebenmann <Laurent.Siebenmann@math.u-psud.fr>*Subject*: Re: BaKoMa fonts*From*: Thierry Bouche <Thierry.Bouche@ujf-grenoble.fr>*Date*: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 14:26:33 +0200 (MET DST)*Cc*: LCS@topodyn.math.u-psud.fr, malyshev@mx.ihep.su, pdftex@tug.org, sebastian.rahtz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk, tex-fonts@math.utah.edu*In-Reply-To*: <199910220415.GAA01324@topodyn.math.u-psud.fr>*References*: <199910220415.GAA01324@topodyn.math.u-psud.fr>

» LS> Scientific elecronic publication is 98% CM. » » SR> If you replace "scientific" with "mathematical academic", » > maybe we could agree on 60%? » » I should indeed have specified "mathematical, academic, and freely » available" rather than just "scientific". If you want to work up » some hard statistics for us, start with www.emis.de. I'd say that these elecronic publications are mostly "no fonts", because most of electronic articles i get are simply (la)tex source (xxx preprint server) that i print with the font set i like (plain TeX files i get are printed using Utopia, e.g., because my "plain" TeX format uses them...) Now, it is quite funny how professional publishers _never_ post DVI (typically journal summaries are in HTML, papers in PDF), and academic self-publishers (as EMIS, Annales de l'Institut Fourier...) insist on the DVI format being the smallest, quickest, etc. They're simply blind, not even realizing that figures vanish, that the unix special syntax is useless under other DVI viewers than xdvi, etc. It's plain arrogant amateurism and incompetence. Thierry Bouche, Grenoble.

**References**:**BaKoMa fonts***From:*Laurent Siebenmann <Laurent.Siebenmann@math.u-psud.fr>

**BaKoMa fonts***From:*Laurent Siebenmann <Laurent.Siebenmann@math.u-psud.fr>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: BaKoMa fonts** - Next by Date:
**Re: Re: BaKoMa fonts** - Prev by thread:
**Re: BaKoMa fonts** - Next by thread:
**Re: Re: BaKoMa fonts** - Index(es):