[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Inverted (=reflected) N
- To: Chris Rowley <C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk>
- Subject: Re: Inverted (=reflected) N
- From: bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>
- Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 08:04:45 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: email@example.com
with respect to the wildly differing naming conventions promulgated
by certain font-supplying organizations, chris says
... I know that you are talking about a world with fixed names (no
synonyms allowed); but there will never be one such fixed list, so why
not prepare for the world of multiple tables or, better, persuade the
"not made here" worlds to support synonyms.
in this i agree with him. however, regarding these particular names,
i can't agree at all:
> Omega Ohm
> Delta increment
> Sigma summation
> Pi product
> These correspond to the many-to-many relationship between characters and
No they do not; they are just synonyms for glyphs.
these are abysmally badly chosen symonyms! they certainly violate my
sense of precision. it's somewhat reasonable to use Omega or Delta
for Ohm or increment, but if anyone used Sigma or Pi instead of
summation or product in preparing an ams publication, they wouldn't
get the correctly-shaped glyph, although it might still make sense to
someone familiar with the math. similarly, to use summation or product
instead of the greek letter could yield extremely confusing nonsense.
there's more than once concept attached here to each of these things
(i'll get knocked if i call them "entities") and one has to be very
careful to use the vocabulary (be it a "name" or a (uni)code) correctly
if one is to avoid making a hash of the content.
i am reminded of the poor, unfortunate "guillemot" pace adobe ...