Received: from webgate.proteosys.de (mail.proteosys-ag.com [62.225.9.49]) by lucy.proteosys (8.11.0/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id f19EucH04644 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:56:38 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f19Eucd18049 . for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:56:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C092A8.80D55700" Received: from mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailserver1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.30]) by mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f19Eub724951 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:56:37 +0100 (MET) Received: from mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.56]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02169 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:56:36 +0100 (MET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (mail.listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.5]) by mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f19EuaM12366 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:56:36 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by mail.listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <11.54A4D7B5@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:56:30 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 488523 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:56:32 +0100 Received: from ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (mail.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.234]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA20783 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:56:31 +0100 (MET) Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA38800 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:56:28 +0100 Received: from plmsc.psu.edu (raman.plmsc.psu.edu [128.118.156.124]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f19EuSu00277 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:56:28 +0100 (MET) Received: (from boris@localhost) by plmsc.psu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA00482; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:45:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Hans Aberg on Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:26:37 +0100) Return-Path: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: inputenc text (and/or math) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:45:27 +0100 Message-ID: <200102091445.JAA00482@plmsc.psu.edu> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Boris Veytsman" Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" To: "Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L" Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3776 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C092A8.80D55700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:26:37 +0100 > From: Hans Aberg > > This is not really what I said; if only math mode is available, one = should > either write "see figure seven.three" or "see figure $7.3$", but not = simply > "see figure 7.3", as the last is both logically wrong, and invites to > making mistakes in markup. > > However, stepping into the question of renderings, one should in this = case > have a special label environment, that makes the labels appear > consistently, both logically and in rendering. Again, it should not be > possible to write "see figure 7.3". If I understand it correctly, Tschichold recommentds only old-style digits for text (he calls them text digits as different from titling digits). Therefore I think that in the tradition of old school there should be difference between '3's in the phrase In Chapter~3 we will show that $\pi>3$. The first '3' should be in old-style, the second---in math style. Also, the command \MakeUppercase should take care of this distinction, because old-style digits are actually *lowercase*, and must be converted to upper case when, e.g. in running heads. A good question is numbers in references and bibiliography, like See equation~(4), or Annals of Improbable Research, \textbf{2}, pp.~27--32, 1998. I disagree with Hans: I think they should be in text digits (old-style if it is used in the copy). Of course this means that old-style must be used in tags, so in the line \pi>3 (3) the digits '3' must be different in the formula and the tag. This seems to be logical: tag is not a part of the equation anyway. What do other people think of this? -- Good luck -Boris http://www.plmsc.psu.edu/~boris/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C092A8.80D55700 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: inputenc text (and/or math)

> = Date:         Fri, 9 Feb 2001 = 15:26:37 +0100
> From: Hans Aberg = <haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE>
>
> This is not really what I said; if only math = mode is available, one should
> either write "see figure seven.three" = or "see figure $7.3$", but not simply
> "see figure 7.3", as the last is both = logically wrong, and invites to
> making mistakes in markup.
>
> However, stepping into the question of = renderings, one should in this case
> have a special label environment, that makes the = labels appear
> consistently, both logically and in rendering. = Again, it should not be
> possible to write "see figure = 7.3".

If I understand it correctly, Tschichold recommentds = only old-style
digits for text (he calls them text digits as = different from titling
digits). Therefore I think that in the tradition of = old school there
should be difference between '3's in the = phrase
        In = Chapter~3 we will show that $\pi>3$.
The first '3' should be in old-style, the second---in = math
style. Also, the command \MakeUppercase should take = care of this
distinction, because old-style digits are actually = *lowercase*, and
must be converted to upper case when, e.g. in running = heads.

A good question is numbers in references and = bibiliography, like

   See equation~(4), or Annals of Improbable = Research, \textbf{2},
   pp.~27--32, 1998.

I disagree with Hans: I think they should be in text = digits (old-style
if it is used in the copy). Of course this means that = old-style must
be used in tags, so in the line
          &nbs= p;           = \pi>3           = ;            =      (3)
the digits '3' must be different in the formula and = the tag. This seems
to be logical: tag is not a part of the equation = anyway.

What do other people think of this?

--
Good luck

-Boris
http://www.plmsc.psu.edu/~boris= /

------_=_NextPart_001_01C092A8.80D55700--