MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C09DD4.37225B80"
In-Reply-To:  <200102231623.QAA13066@penguin.nag.co.uk>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0102231112130.27803-100000@sun06.ams.org> (message              from Barbara Beeton on Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:16:42 -0500)             <Pine.GSO.4.33.0102231112130.27803-100000@sun06.ams.org>
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject:      Re: LaTeX's internal char prepresentation (UTF8 or Unicode?)
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:04:40 +0100
Message-ID:  <v03110700b6bc6c238279@[195.100.226.147]>
From: "Hans Aberg" <haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE>
Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: "Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L" <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Status: R

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C09DD4.37225B80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At 16:23 +0000 2001/02/23, David Carlisle wrote:=20
>See for example=20
>http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML2/1D7.html=20
>part of the MathML2 spec (which became a W3C Recommendation on=20
>Wednesday)=20

I had a look at the document=20
  http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML2/PDF-s-MathML-20010221.pdf=20

In 6.3.2, there is the list:=20
  Bold=20
  Italic=20
  Bold Italic=20
  Double-struck=20
  Script=20
  Bold Script=20
  Fraktur=20
  Bold Fraktur=20
  Sans-serif=20
  Bold Sans-serif=20
  Sans-serif Italic=20
  Sans-serif Bold Italic=20
  Monospace=20

In my opinion, there are two entries missing:=20
  Calligraphic=20
  Bold Calligraphic=20

I think that originally, the Calligraphic font of AMS-Fonts was intended =
as a substitute for the RSFS like Script in use in European manuscripts, =
but they are sufficiently different that they might be used side by side =
in a manuscript.=20

-- Also, I think earlier discussions here and in math-fonts-discuss said =
that the Bold Fraktur look awful in print. But if it is in actual use in =
mathematical manuscripts, it should be added. I haven't seen it myself, =
though. The only use I have seen of Fraktur it is as Lie algebras, and I =
do not know why one would want them to be in bold.=20

-- In addition, I can mention that if one should be very rigorous and =
formal with this idea of adding all the math symbols, then one should =
add=20
  Upright=20
That is, what one now probably will use are the ASCII letters A-Za-z. =
Strictly speaking they should have their own mathematical slots, too. I =
don't think that this is a very practical suggestion, though, as they =
probably will have identical representation with the ASCII letters, =
unless one introduces a special math font. So I just mentioned it to =
give thought (thinking of math as separate from natural languages). =
Strictly speaking, the naming ought to be=20
  Serif=20
  Serif Italic=20
  Serif Bold=20
  Serif Bold Italic=20
expect that perhaps "Serif Slanted" =3D "Italic", so that everywhere the =
word "Italic" should be replaced by "Slanted" (or "Oblique"). Etc.=20

  Hans Aberg=20

------_=_NextPart_001_01C09DD4.37225B80
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<TITLE>     Re: LaTeX's internal char prepresentation (UTF8 or =
Unicode?)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P>At 16:23 +0000 2001/02/23, David Carlisle wrote: </P>

<P>&gt;See for example </P>

<P>&gt;http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML2/1D7.html </P>

<P>&gt;part of the MathML2 spec (which became a W3C Recommendation on =
</P>

<P>&gt;Wednesday) </P>
<BR>

<P>I had a look at the document </P>

<P>  http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML2/PDF-s-MathML-20010221.pdf </P>
<BR>

<P>In 6.3.2, there is the list: </P>

<P>  Bold </P>

<P>  Italic </P>

<P>  Bold Italic </P>

<P>  Double-struck </P>

<P>  Script </P>

<P>  Bold Script </P>

<P>  Fraktur </P>

<P>  Bold Fraktur </P>

<P>  Sans-serif </P>

<P>  Bold Sans-serif </P>

<P>  Sans-serif Italic </P>

<P>  Sans-serif Bold Italic </P>

<P>  Monospace </P>
<BR>

<P>In my opinion, there are two entries missing: </P>

<P>  Calligraphic </P>

<P>  Bold Calligraphic </P>
<BR>

<P>I think that originally, the Calligraphic font of AMS-Fonts was =
intended as a substitute for the RSFS like Script in use in European =
manuscripts, but they are sufficiently different that they might be used =
side by side in a manuscript. </P>
<BR>

<P>-- Also, I think earlier discussions here and in math-fonts-discuss =
said that the Bold Fraktur look awful in print. But if it is in actual =
use in mathematical manuscripts, it should be added. I haven't seen it =
myself, though. The only use I have seen of Fraktur it is as Lie =
algebras, and I do not know why one would want them to be in bold. </P>
<BR>

<P>-- In addition, I can mention that if one should be very rigorous and =
formal with this idea of adding all the math symbols, then one should =
add </P>

<P>  Upright </P>

<P>That is, what one now probably will use are the ASCII letters A-Za-z. =
Strictly speaking they should have their own mathematical slots, too. I =
don't think that this is a very practical suggestion, though, as they =
probably will have identical representation with the ASCII letters, =
unless one introduces a special math font. So I just mentioned it to =
give thought (thinking of math as separate from natural languages). =
Strictly speaking, the naming ought to be </P>

<P>  Serif </P>

<P>  Serif Italic </P>

<P>  Serif Bold </P>

<P>  Serif Bold Italic </P>

<P>expect that perhaps &quot;Serif Slanted&quot;<B> =3D</B> =
&quot;Italic&quot;, so that everywhere the word &quot;Italic&quot; =
should be replaced by &quot;Slanted&quot; (or &quot;Oblique&quot;). Etc. =
</P>
<BR>

<P>  Hans Aberg </P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C09DD4.37225B80--