Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!usc!randvax!jhenry
From: jhenry@randvax.UUCP (Jim Henry)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: mathematical editor
Keywords: math, editor, wishful-thinking
Message-ID: <2237@randvax.UUCP>
Date: 4 Oct 89 00:39:47 GMT
References: <9722@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <2221@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Reply-To: jhenry@rand-unix.UUCP (Jim Henry)
Organization: RAND Corp., Santa Monica, Ca.
Lines: 25


We are looking for an equation editor also.  So far we think MathType 2.0
has the best looking output, better than Expressionist 2.0, for a
comparable amount of effort.

Specifically, Expressionist seems to leave most of the work of following
the rules of mathematical typography to the author.  Very few people have
the faintest idea of what these rules are.  Equations that don't follow the
rules do look bad to most people who read significant quantities of math.
Knowing what to do about it isn't always so obvious.

MathType 2.0 does seem to understand most of the things you would do in an
equation and applies the appropriate rules.

MathType uses Apple's "Position Independent PostScript" so that the
equations behave like PICTs on the Mac but use PostScript directly when
printed on a PostScript printer (probably a near necessity to get good
looking equations with either package).  We have seen problems with
Expressionist equations used in Word because of "Fractional Widths".  When
fractional widths is turned on, Expressionist equations are not printed
correctly.

I would be interested in hearing more specifically why you feel
Expressionist yields better results.  In particular, are any of the
differences due to the versions of the products being evaluated?