From: Raymond Mercier (rm459@cam.ac.uk)
Date: Sat Mar 18 2006 - 06:25:49 CST
Asmus Freytag writes
> It would be nice to exclude the possibility that this is just a case of a
> different script font being used. Are there any other script style
> variables in the notation or the book?
No, unless one counts the script pi U+03D6 ϖ. The inclusion of that in the
Unicode block Greek and Coptic would be a sort of precedent, I suppose, in
support of the inclusion of a script L in Basic Latin. However, unlike the
script L, the script pi is very common in technical use, although physicists
always call it 'omega-bar', not seeing that it is the ordinary Greek
handwritten pi.
Looking through my bookshelf I get the impression that French works seem to
go for script forms, and I attach two examples from R. Godement's Théorie
des Faisceaux, Paris, 1958. Here we have a script L more in keeping with
U+2112, and other script forms, but these all agree well with the Unicode
block Mathematical Alphnumeric Symbols; there is also an M which must surely
be Fraktur U+1D510. Compared with this usage, Billard's script L does seem
rather eccentric.
Normally in the translation of a technical work one tries to keep to the
notation of the original, but in this case I am wondering what is best.
There would be no harm in using the more conventional script L U+2112.
Raymond
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 18 2006 - 06:30:41 CST
