Reinhard Kotucha <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8 March 2010 Hans Hagen wrote: > > > On 24-2-2010 14:03, Taco Hoekwater wrote: > > > Élie Roux wrote: > > > > > >> While trying to get the \LuaTeX and \LuaLaTeX macros into the > > >> LaTeX metalogo package, I tried to make the logos a bit more > > >> fancy but still respecting the style of the LuaTeX manual. Here > > >> is my attempt. What do you think about it? My personal favorites > > >> are proposal 3 for both. > > > > > > You probably already know how I feel about this: proposal 1 is my > > > favorite. > > > > Indeed. No fancy shifting needed. It also avoids endless > > discussions about how to deal with it in whatever font: just > > Lua\TeX as we have been using right from the start. > > > > I don't care about the lualatex logo. > > Hans, I fully agree. This "fancy shifting" is ridiculous, of course. > But it's actually unavoidable because it was introduced by Knuth and > we all know that Knuth is infallible. IMO it's (more than) sufficient > if "Lua\TeX" contains "\TeX". > > In order to avoid endless discussions I think that Taco should decide > and carve his decision in stone.
a simple initial logo is a discouragement to people who will later (no doubt) want to add illegibility to it. the range of tex-related logos has several excrescences in it, and the smaller the incentive to make yet more, the better, imo. so, you can tell where my vote goes. robin the minimalist.
