Re: Unicode and math symbols

["Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>]

On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Berthold K.P. Horn wrote:

> Let me stick my neck out here:  I know this was not the intent 
> of UNICODE, and UNICODE has many features that make it non-ideal
> for this, but UNICODE *is* a de facto glyph standard.  
> 
> (1) Which is why we have the `alphabetic presentation forms' 
> ff, ffi, ffl, fi, fl, slongt, st etc. in UNICODE.

They are in the compatibility section. If you consider
the Indic scripts and Arabic (except for the compatibility
section), you would not say that Unicode is a glyph standard.

Regards,	Martin.