[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*: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 21:49:16 +0100 (MET)*cc*: C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk, BNB@math.ams.org, tex-font@math.utah.edu*Flags*: 000000000000*In-Reply-To*: <199702282012.PAA08397@kauai.ai.mit.edu>*Sender*: mduerst@enoshima

On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Berthold K.P. Horn wrote: > This is why it is so important to get as many of these issue resolved > *long* before anyone ever starts using this sort of stuff. Like if > we decide in the next millenium that UNICODE may be useful for TeX, > then it would be too late to agitate for inclusion of additional > characters at *that* point. Inclusion of additional characters, in particular genuinely new (in the sense that they are not just the same as something already in) but well established math symbols, in not a problem at all (except for time, which is spent mainly on the ISO side). There many ongoing additions, in particular scripts not yet covered, historical scripts, and CJK ideographs. Of course, moving things around is a completely different issue, to be avoided at all cost. 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: Unicode and math symbols** - 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):