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

*To*: "Berthold K.P. Horn" <bkph@ai.mit.edu>*Subject*: Re: Unicode and math symbols*From*: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>*Date*: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:12:30 +0100 (MET)*cc*: C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk, BNB@math.ams.org, tex-font@math.utah.edu*Flags*: 000000000000*In-Reply-To*: <199702251703.MAA06513@kauai.ai.mit.edu>*Sender*: mduerst@enoshima

On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Berthold K.P. Horn wrote: > Let me stick my neck out here: I know this was not the intent > of UNICODE, and UNICODE has many features that make it non-ideal > for this, but UNICODE *is* a de facto glyph standard. > > (1) Which is why we have the `alphabetic presentation forms' > ff, ffi, ffl, fi, fl, slongt, st etc. in UNICODE. They are in the compatibility section. If you consider the Indic scripts and Arabic (except for the compatibility section), you would not say that Unicode is a glyph standard. Regards, Martin.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Unicode and math symbols***From:*"Berthold K.P. Horn" <bkph@ai.mit.edu>

**References**:**Re: Unicode and math symbols***From:*"Berthold K.P. Horn" <bkph@ai.mit.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Checksums (was re: 8r fonts)** - Next by Date:
**Re: Unicode and math symbols** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Unicode and math symbols** - Next by thread:
**Re: Unicode and math symbols** - Index(es):