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

Re: Remaining missing glphs

At 14:12 97/10/01, Ulrik Vieth wrote:
>On the other hand, the IUPAP standard on symbols in physics states
>that if there are two variants of a Greek letter, either one may be
>used, so it wouldn't be wrong to use it in math mode if available.

  I think one should not rely too much on the conventions the physicists
are inventing, especially when their standards restricts possibilities,
because that could make it impossible to typeset pure math: Certainly,
\varphi and \phi could be used to denote different quantities in the same
paper. With other variants, I think the main thing is that they, if to be
used side by side, look different enough to be easily recognized by a

>Have a look at
>  http://www.unicode.org/Unicode.charts/normal/U+0370.html
>for a Greek font table.  The \varbeta is in slot U+03D0 and seems to
>look like a normal \beta without a stem descending below the baseline
>and the upper bowl being perhaps a little more curly than usual.
>If this character is only needed for Greek text, it is questionable
>whether this justifies allocating two slots in a new math encoding.

  I think Unicode is probably very good for use with languages: I do not
think they have thought very heavily about the exact rendering; formally,
the exact rendering is not part of Unicode. So if there are different
traditional renderings between say the same letter in classical and modern
Greek alphabets, then the Unicode standard could merge those into the same
Unicode symbol, leaving it to the rendering program to keep the difference
between classical and modern styles.

  The problem becomes worse with mathematics, then. I know the MathML team
will ask Unicode for some improvements in this respect (even though I do
not know exactly what). -- Perhaps you should try some coordination with

  Hans Aberg
                  * AMS member: Listing <http://www.ams.org/cml/>
                  * Email: Hans Aberg <haberg@member.ams.org>