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

**To**:*Hans Aberg <haberg@matematik.su.se>***Subject**:**Re: Binary Relations, draft 1****From**:*"Y&Y, Inc." <support@yandy.com>***Date**: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 08:02:17 -0500**Cc**:*Thierry.Bouche@ujf-grenoble.fr, math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk*- Content-Length: 952

Hi: I think the discussion of typesetting conventions for constants versus variables can be extended endlessly, since when you get right down to it there is no completely unequivocal distinction. What is a constant depends on your frame of mind --- I think some of the discussion here was already going in that direction. In any case, it seems like the purpose is not to invent new rules but to deal with the existing ones if possible in a rational way. Ultimately only to see what glyphs are needed and whether different `styles' of a glyph have different `semantics' And I guess the point that there is a need for upright `math italics' has been made. As has the need for blackboard bold in Unicode (of course the most commonly used blackboard bold letters already are there, as are some Fraktur symbols and some Script letters - under `letterlike symbols' IIRC). Regards, Berthold. Y&Y, Inc. mailto:support@YandY.com http://www.YandY.com

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Binary Relations, draft 1** - Next by Date:
**Re: Binary Relations, draft 1** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Binary Relations, draft 1** - Next by thread:
**Re: Binary Relations, draft 1** - Index(es):