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 f4L7Nhf24391 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:23:43 +0200 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f4L7Ng726525 . for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:23:42 +0200 Received: from mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailserver1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.30]) by mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4L7NfU04918 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:23:41 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0E1C6.F6FE2980" 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 JAA11074 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:23:41 +0200 (MEST) 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 f4L7NbU04910 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:23:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by mail.listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <1.ED16D81A@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Mon, 21 May 2001 9:21:48 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 496149 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:23:33 +0200 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 JAA07133 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:23:32 +0200 (MET DST) 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 JAA35772 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:23:32 +0200 Received: from tibre.ujf-grenoble.fr (tibre.ujf-grenoble.fr [193.54.238.31]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4L7NVj11965 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:23:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mozart.ujf-grenoble.Fr (mozart.ujf-grenoble.fr [193.54.241.5]) by tibre.ujf-grenoble.fr (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3/Configured by AD & JE 25/10/1999) with ESMTP id JAA24816 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:23:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from bouche@localhost) by mozart.ujf-grenoble.Fr (8.9.3/8.8.5) id JAA26266; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:23:20 +0200 (MET DST) In-Reply-To: References: <200105161742.MAA02503@riemann.math.twsu.edu> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.22 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Multilingual Encodings Summary 2.2 Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 08:23:20 +0100 Message-ID: <200105210723.JAA26266@mozart.ujf-grenoble.Fr> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Thierry Bouche" 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: 4092 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E1C6.F6FE2980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hans Aberg: =BB >I have seen examples of both types of epsilon being used to denote = set =BB >membership, =BB Lars Hellstr=F6m : =BB No doubt due to "limitations in past typesetting". Well, that should be checked against Cajori. There has been a time where the root sign was `r.', i suspect that epsilon (whatever form, it was on manuscript first...) was the former form of the belonging to sign. Of course, printing technologies have ironed out some notations that could come back when it was enhanced (back to the roots, which I had studied at lengths in Cajori... the precedence of the form (fenced math expr) rather than using the rule over to denote the scope of the root was imposed by the cost of the second form. In this respect, reading the book by Chaundy et al. gives a very interesting picture of the monotype time, when mostly anything was possible, but any requirement for a special symbol (thus punches design, etc.) or layout could slow down the process and raise the costs in discouraging scales. =BB >Further, if you want to make it impossible to use \varepsilon and = \epsilon =BB >side by side in the same document, you will have to make sure that = in all =BB >of the world literature in the past up till now it has never been = used that =BB >way, because that is how the requirements of Unicode were set up. =BB =BB I'm not saying that it should be completely impossible to use them = side by =BB side (even though I would question any attempts to do so), but they =BB shouldn't be provided as distinct characters in the default set-up. Yes, I mostly agree. Making it hard for authors to use in a same paper two versions of epsilon or phi is a good thing for the readers. Allowing them to choose which shape they prefer is no problem, especially if the publisher can override this with his styles. Honestly, when i read maths with a \varphi next to a \phi, i never know whether it's keying error or semantic subtility. The problem being that any available glyph in a standard font set will be used by mathematicians... On the other hand, pi and varpi should cohabit, but maybe with a more semantic name (pi/doricpi?). Thierry Bouche ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E1C6.F6FE2980 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Multilingual Encodings Summary 2.2

Hans Aberg:
=BB >I have seen examples of both types of epsilon = being used to denote set
=BB >membership,
=BB

Lars Hellstr=F6m :
=BB No doubt due to "limitations in past = typesetting".

Well, that should be checked against Cajori. There has = been a time
where the root sign was `r.', i suspect that epsilon = (whatever form,
it was on manuscript first...)  was the former = form of the belonging
to sign. Of course, printing technologies have ironed = out some
notations that could come back when it was enhanced = (back to the
roots, which I had studied at lengths in Cajori... = the precedence of
the form <sqrt sign> (fenced math expr) rather = than using the rule
over to denote the scope of the root was imposed by = the cost of the
second form. In this respect, reading the book by = Chaundy et al. gives
a very interesting picture of the monotype time, when = mostly anything
was possible, but any requirement for a special = symbol (thus punches
design, etc.) or layout could slow down the process = and raise the
costs in discouraging scales.

=BB >Further, if you want to make it impossible to = use \varepsilon and \epsilon
=BB >side by side in the same document, you will = have to make sure that in all
=BB >of the world literature in the past up till = now it has never been used that
=BB >way, because that is how the requirements of = Unicode were set up.
=BB
=BB I'm not saying that it should be completely = impossible to use them side by
=BB side (even though I would question any attempts = to do so), but they
=BB shouldn't be provided as distinct characters in = the default set-up.

Yes, I mostly agree. Making it hard for authors to use = in a same paper
two versions of epsilon or phi is a good thing for = the
readers. Allowing them to choose which shape they = prefer is no
problem, especially if the publisher can override = this with his
styles. Honestly, when i read maths with a \varphi = next to a  \phi, i
never know whether it's keying error or semantic = subtility. The
problem being that any available glyph in a standard = font set will be
used by mathematicians... On the other hand, pi and = varpi should
cohabit, but maybe with a more semantic name = (pi/doricpi?).


Thierry Bouche

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E1C6.F6FE2980--