[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>*Subject*: Re: Unicode and math symbols*From*: Chris Rowley <C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk>*Date*: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 19:10:17 GMT*Cc*: bbeeton <BNB@math.ams.org>, bkph@ai.mit.edu, tex-font@math.utah.edu*Flags*: 000000000000*In-Reply-To*: <Pine.SUN.3.95q.970224193112.245W-100000@enoshima>*References*: <856793001.783019.BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG> <Pine.SUN.3.95q.970224193112.245W-100000@enoshima>

Martin > > Please note that for one area where you would assume that > dealing with "meaning" would be especially easy, the > character/glyph model that is the general base of > Unicode/ISO 10646 had to be changed somewhat (to > come closer to "glyph" than for other scripts) to > accomodate for present practice and user expectations. Sounds interesting: to what do you refer? > Similar things may apply to math (or may not apply). Indeed: See next message:-). chris

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Unicode and math symbols***From:*"Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>

**References**:**Re: Unicode and math symbols***From:*bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>

**Re: Unicode and math symbols***From:*"Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Unicode and math symbols** - Next by Date:
**Re: Unicode and math symbols** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Unicode and math symbols** - Next by thread:
**Re: Unicode and math symbols** - Index(es):