[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Semantical writing (was: logical markup)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Semantical writing (was: logical markup)
- From: email@example.com (Hans Aberg)
- Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 18:58:57 +0200
At 16:21 97/05/05, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>Hans Aberg writes:
>> The idea is to sort out the names into different boxes, or modules, so
>> that they do not conflict. By the scheme, one can classify glyph renderings
>> and symbol semantics independently, and then link them together as an
>> independent step.
>It is very clear that one can construct a macro layer over the actual
>font encodings to enable semantic tagging (I always thought most people
>would write their math in that way - at least I do).
Just because one develops a macro layer, it need not mean that the
programming is structured, and I tried to indicate a way doing that:
The LaTeX macro package layering tends to be vertical, with one layer on
top another, and it is difficult rumbling about in that. The stuff I
indicated spreads it out horisontally, side-by-side, and it is easier to
create new packages by combining style elements from different packages.
>My question was strictly on the font encoding issue wether a new math
>font encoding standard should force font designers (always in the hope
>that there will be people designing new math fonts in the future)
>to design one glyph which is suitable as \setminus *and* as \backslash
>or if they should have the freedom to design different glyphs for the
>two different concepts.
I tried to indicate a method by which such matters can evolve more
freely: Start off with whatever you find is a good compromise. Later, if
people find a need for having different glyphs for an originally single
glyph, they may have so.