<div>Hans Hagen Tue, 30 May 2006 09:31:18 +0200 wrote:<br> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>>even more dangerous is the fact that users can choose from the whole<br>>range of unicodes and believe me, we've seen, in one document many<br>>different *dashes being used, greek and non greek being mixed, chars
<br>>that looked like the one needed (in this or that font) being misused for<br>>...; or presentation forms ending up in the document source (like fi);<br>>or take the superiors: one will never really know if a superscript 12 is
<br>>meant to be used or sup1 sup2 (because the author wanted it to look that<br>>way)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would like to add to this poorly tested OpenType fonts (e.g. try using decorative glyphs in Math PI fonts, they all map to same unicode value).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>>so, instead of focusing on what we don't like about ms office math, we<br>>should look at where the strong points of (future) tex's lay and how we<br>>can let those worlds work together</div>
<div>some bit of content indicators are now missing in TeX maths, which can be easily implemented by slighlty modifying TeX (using PERL or Lova). Other markups can be easily obtained using this content-enriched model. It is not neccessary to use even a backslash TeX-like markup; some LISPish implementation may be quite enough. You can use XML but then you need James Clark's nxml-mode in emacs...
</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Suki</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><br> </div>