Re: footnotes and tables (was Re: 1.0 features)

Subject: Re: footnotes and tables (was Re: 1.0 features)
From: Paul Rohr (
Date: Thu May 03 2001 - 19:25:45 CDT

At 10:27 AM 5/2/01 +0100, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
>I am reluctant to dismiss the academia as a
>marginal user group, and footnotes and equations as not very
>critical features.

Sorry for not being clearer. We don't disagree on this point anywhere near
as much as you may think.

Specifically, you made the case for the value of academic adoption
exceptionally well. Early adoption in that market is, as you say, very
valuable, and it's been clear from day one that academia is one of the first
niches we *will* dominate. Our pricing, philosophy, and developer base make
that conclusion a no-brainer.

My claim was that footnotes just aren't a feature that I'd hold 1.0 hostage
to get. Given the number of students and academics in our development
community, that feature will get added as soon as the right person needs to
scratch that itch. In the mean time, we have far far more potential users
(I believe) who'd rather have a 1.0 without a feature they never use, than
no 1.0 at all.

Fortunately, Pat Lam plans to make this whole discussion moot, thus making
all of us happy. :-)


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat May 26 2001 - 03:51:01 CDT