[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Inverted (=reflected) N
- To: Ulrik Vieth <vieth@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de>
- Subject: Re: Inverted (=reflected) N
- From: Chris Rowley <C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 18:29:26 GMT
- Cc: BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG, math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk
Ulrik wrote --
>
> While I agree with the logic of this naming scheme, I'm afraid that
> the glyph names in existing AFM files aren't always systematic, not
> to mention that some glpyhs are named by meaning rather than form,
> i.e. "suchthat" rather than "epsiloninv" (actually "epsilonrot")
> or even "nabla" instead of "Deltainv". It is certainly possible to
> introduce a consistent naming scheme in our .etx and .mtx files,
> but that doesn't solve all problems.
It does not indeed. My recent experience with the vastly similar are of text
symbol names shows that it is immpossible to find a naming scheme that
is consistent in any but the narrowest sense that it fits some rules
used by the person who invented for what seemed like good reasons at
the time...and even that is very difficult.
All I was doing is pointing out some things I happened to notice;
they are probably not worth spending time on.
> P.S. On a different subject: I happened to notice that a new draft
> of the HTML-Math working group has been released in early January,
> one chapter of which also discusses entitiy names. As usual, you
> can find it at http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-math/
Maybe we could also be told whether it is any more definitive than
previous lists; I suspect not.
chris