home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!mucs!m1!carlisle
- From: carlisle@cs.man.ac.uk (David Carlisle)
- Newsgroups: comp.text.tex
- Subject: Re: AMSLaTeX vs. LaTeX
- Message-ID: <CARLISLE.92Aug14102947@r8d.cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: 14 Aug 92 09:29:47 GMT
- References: <7759644@MVB.SAIC.COM>
- Sender: news@cs.man.ac.uk
- Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
- Lines: 29
- In-reply-to: PPARKER@TWSUVM.UC.TWSU.EDU's message of 13 Aug 92 21:21:18 GMT
-
- >>>>> On 13 Aug 92 21:21:18 GMT, PPARKER@TWSUVM.UC.TWSU.EDU (Phillip E. Parker) said:
-
- Phillip> The closest compatibility I think is AMSLaTeX with LaTeX 2.09 + NFSS.
- Phillip> It would be possible for almost any user to transfer .tex files from
- Phillip> one to the other, but very time-consuming and tedious, and just more so
- Phillip> with LaTeX 2.09 without NFSS.
-
- AMSLaTeX *is* LaTeX 2.09 + NFSS. Or rather amslatex is a suite of
- style options which work with such a format.
-
- Clearly if a document uses some commands which are defined in a
- document style or style option, then it will not work without some
- modification if you choose not to use that style option. However this
- applies to any latex style that defines commands rather than just
- altering the formatting. To say an `amslatex' file is not a `latex'
- file is the same as saying that a file calling on, say, `fancyheadings'
- is not latex.
-
- David
- --
- David Carlisle
- JANET: carlisle@uk.ac.man.cs
-
- Computer Science Department
- Manchester University
- Oxford Road
- Manchester
- England
- M13 9PL
-