Re: [KNAPPEN@VKPMZD.kph.Uni-Mainz.DE: Re: psnfss and lw35nfss]

["Berthold K.P. Horn" <bkph@ai.mit.edu>]

   > I am very sorry to hear that, I was somehow hoping one day to do something
   > about the mess relating to math...  Sigh.

   My understanding of The Unicode Standard suggests that it is not
   appropriate for encoding all mathematical notations.  

Then why did they bother at all :=)  I think they changed there mind
at some point but then couldn't undo what was already there...

   In what sense is there, at present, a "mess realting to math"?

(1) It covers only about half of the mathematical symbols available
in some Type 1 fonts.

(2) It is very spotty, picking some blackboard bold characters and not
others e.g.

   Note: this is probably not the correct forum for discussing uses and
   deficiencies of Unicode or math notation but it does contain several
   people with an interest in these subjects.

(3) I know that UNICODE is not a glyph standard.  Nevertheless it would
be extremely beneficial to future developments of mathematical typsetting
software if it could be used for all basic symbols.  Yes I know you
can't expect to do a `math extension' font that way, but certainly,
italic, symbols, arrows, blackboard bold, what is in MSAM and MSBM etc.