On 7/13/2012 6:37 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
> The TeX collection includes things which are not only mathematical symbols. No need to be so dismissive, Asmus.
No need to be so ... - my comment was carefully worded to apply
explicitly to mathematical usage only - and was issued in the context of
a discussion about mathematical symbols. Something as simple as a change
in subject line would have been sufficient to indicate that you were
after the emojis (or whatever) in that list, and that your comments were
not intended to apply to mathematical symbols.
For symbols of a more general sort the symbol list occupies an
interesting territory between a font showing and a character set. The
fact that the macros are individually named at a level accessible to the
end user, pushes it closer to a de-facto character set.
A./
>
> On 13 Jul 2012, at 14:24, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>
>> On 7/13/2012 1:57 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
>>> That document is 164 pages long. I would be interested in examining it after someone else has done the background work of a first pass at identifying which characters are already encoded. This is sort of an emoji/wingdings/webdings scenario, I guess. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>> The process of encoding mathematical characters has used experts from a coalition of publishers to help make the differentiation between "ad-hoc" and "conventional" symbols. Only if there's a convention around the use of a symbol does it deserve encoding. If there's been a budding convention around some symbol (republication across other works) that was missed by this process, it would be nice to get access to this information from participants.
>>
>> A./
>>
>> PS: earlier versions of this document have been consulted in the process of completing the math repertoire
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Jul 13 2012 - 16:01:39 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Jul 13 2012 - 16:01:39 CDT