Thanks, John, for showing us how awful RTF realy is. I retract a request
for any use of it.
I didn't mean to suggest *both* "ASCII" (i.e., the sort of thing first
posted) and "Schlosser" format should be used. Trying to type-set in
ASCII to get things to resemble nice printed equations (e.g. from Tex)
*is* tough and, I felt, unecessary, as long as we use compact vector
notation. Maybe this would be done with one or two matrices as examples,
but for the most part can be avoided. My suggestion was to strip the
type-setting commands from the Tex version, and, on the odd occaision
(as in the lim[% -> 0] case) to use an alternate which is fairly self-
explanatory. This would give reasonable readability with minimal
(but not zero) effort. If someone is going to the trouble to do the
"ASCII" type-setting, then this intermediate version should not be used,
as the readability issue is not a problem and the full Tex version would
be there too.
For those posting abstracts, however, an intermediate version (with the
For those posting abstracts, however, an intermediate version (with the
exact format up to discussion, what I showed was a *suggestion*) would
be very helpful. (Nice packaging makes the product more attractive.)
Paul
schlosser at beta.ciit.org
