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

.dvi archives and .tex archives are different animals

.dvi archives and .tex archives are different animals

Dear Barbara,

 >      i do believe the ams can be considered to have a "scientific
 > archive", although we don't keep documents in .dvi form.  we're
 > not concerned that msam and msbm will become unreliable, and we
 > *do* expect to re-use many of these documents.

The needs of the ams as an important typesetting and publishing
organisation are very different from those of the scientist using a
dvi archive.  The standard CM .dvi is analogous to a "preprint" in
that it is good for reading only, and not of a distinguished style
--- one might call it budget quality electronic paper. The ams
archives in .tex form should be compared with the vast storerooms
in which the composed metal type of mathematics books used to be
kept for later revisions and reprintings (say 50 to 100 years ago).

     Larry S

PS (unrelated)

 > larry siebenmann says:
 >     The msxm and msym fonts are *recently* outdated.
 > 1986 is recent???  maybe on the 100-year timescale ...

Indeed indeed, 1986 *is* recent.  The demise of msxm and msym
fonts is *still more* recent because they were to my memory
supplanted by msam and msbm only from *1989*.