Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
References: <CA+jHFwStUS3Pwp8tYOm2kCvk+ZhaiJ2k4PEuw9g7dzbVnRuKGQ@mail.gmail.com>           
            <omt0oxjg2rsq$.dlg@nililand.de>
            <BE235558-C68B-431B-A2E3-12CB19A0D40C@gmail.com>
            <537C887C.1000009@nag.co.uk>
Message-ID:  <D61B7C46-2650-4B43-87D2-970E5BB81813@gmail.com>
Date:         Wed, 21 May 2014 22:11:32 +0930
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Will Robertson <wspr81@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Unicode math
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <537C887C.1000009@nag.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Status: R

On 21 May 2014, at 8:35 pm, David Carlisle <davidc@NAG.CO.UK> wrote:

> On 21/05/2014 11:49, Will Robertson wrote:
>>=20
>> On 20 May 2014, at 11:34 pm, Ulrike Fischer=20
>> <news3@NILILAND.DE>
>>  wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>> So in my opinion the current \mathbf-etc setup in unicode-math
>>> actually did the right thing and improved the standard
>>> \math-commands.
>>>=20
>> I=92m replying out of order, but I=92m still inclined to agree with yo=
u here :)
>> The big problem was not handling \mathit properly.
>>=20
>=20
> or at least the problem is more apparent for italic as the differences =
between
> math and text setting are more glaring in that case:-)

Well, I think from the foregoing discussing (correct me if I=92m wrong on=
 this!) that we all roughly agree that a suitable OpenType math font with=
 bold glyphs in plane 1 will still be a sensible default for \mathbf, alb=
eit with an obvious override possible (both as a package option and at ma=
th-font-load time) when a =93text=94 bold font is desired instead for mul=
ti-letter identifiers.

\mathit is just wrong as it currently stands.


>> It has been possible for a long time to select a text font for a math =
alphabet in unicode-math, but this feature was probably not documented ve=
ry well.
>> If you try to select a particular unicode range such as \mathbfup and =
a font simply doesn=92t have it (well, it only checks =93A=94 I think), t=
he remapping doesn=92t occur and you get the ascii-range glyphs:
>>=20
>=20
> Yes, although I think what's needed is an explicit way to do this rathe=
r than relying on heuristics

Agreed for sure.


> for example while answering a tex.sx question I wanted to use rsfs (or =
euler) for script in addition or instead of
> the script in stix because well just because that's what the question a=
sked for, and it seemed  that the easiest way
> currently is to use \mathup{\euler{A B C to disable the mathcode mappin=
g which works but looks a bit odd.

Most certainly, this is not what we should be asking users to do.
This (arbitrary \mathXYZ alphabet support) was always in the works but ti=
me got away from me.

Cheers,
Will