[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk*Subject*: Re: [KNAPPEN@VKPMZD.kph.Uni-Mainz.DE: Re: psnfss and lw35nfss]*From*: "Berthold K.P. Horn" <bkph@ai.mit.edu>*Date*: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:19:57 -0500 (EST)*CC*: tex-font@math.utah.edu*Flags*: 000000000000*In-reply-to*: <199702101627.QAA15343@fell.open.ac.uk> (message from ChrisRowley on Mon, 10 Feb 1997 16:27:45 GMT)*Reply-to*: bkph@ai.mit.edu

> I am very sorry to hear that, I was somehow hoping one day to do something > about the mess relating to math... Sigh. My understanding of The Unicode Standard suggests that it is not appropriate for encoding all mathematical notations. Then why did they bother at all :=) I think they changed there mind at some point but then couldn't undo what was already there... In what sense is there, at present, a "mess realting to math"? (1) It covers only about half of the mathematical symbols available in some Type 1 fonts. (2) It is very spotty, picking some blackboard bold characters and not others e.g. Note: this is probably not the correct forum for discussing uses and deficiencies of Unicode or math notation but it does contain several people with an interest in these subjects. (3) I know that UNICODE is not a glyph standard. Nevertheless it would be extremely beneficial to future developments of mathematical typsetting software if it could be used for all basic symbols. Yes I know you can't expect to do a `math extension' font that way, but certainly, italic, symbols, arrows, blackboard bold, what is in MSAM and MSBM etc.

**References**:**Re: [KNAPPEN@VKPMZD.kph.Uni-Mainz.DE: Re: psnfss and lw35nfss]***From:*Chris Rowley <C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**Unicode and composite characters** - Next by Date:
**Re: quotesingle and quoteright in PSNFSS** - Prev by thread:
**Re: [KNAPPEN@VKPMZD.kph.Uni-Mainz.DE: Re: psnfss and lw35nfss]** - Next by thread:
**Re: Unicode and math symbols** - Index(es):