Thu, 4 Jun 1998 12:20:22 +0200
>> If you're talking about the 1.335 docs, they certainly need revising,
>> but I don't think they are completely obsolete. The examples using
>> "0" encoded fonts instead of "8a" are clearly misleading and should be
>> replaced, but the summary of docstrip commands presumably can be kept
>> with just minor touching up.
> do you have time even for this, though?
I doubt it. I'd rather work on bringing the math font stuff up to
fontinst 1.8 and see what needs to be done about those hacks.
OTOH, I might consider integrating parts of the old documentation
into the new fontinst.dtx as the \OnlyDescription part.
>> Anyway, I thought that working on the docs was Rowland's job.
> I thought Rowland was working on a *new* doc, not a revision of the
> current guide....
Based on all his question about details, I'm really confused as to
what kind of doc he's going to write. Let him answer this himself.