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

*To*: bbeeton <BNB@math.ams.org>*Subject*: Re: Unicode and math symbols*From*: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>*Date*: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 19:33:54 +0100 (MET)*cc*: Chris Rowley <C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk>, bkph@ai.mit.edu, tex-font@math.utah.edu*Flags*: 000000000000*In-Reply-To*: <856793001.783019.BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>*Sender*: mduerst@enoshima

On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, barbara beeton wrote: > unicode (and other codes) deal with *meaning*, not form. Please note that for one area where you would assume that dealing with "meaning" would be especially easy, the character/glyph model that is the general base of Unicode/ISO 10646 had to be changed somewhat (to come closer to "glyph" than for other scripts) to accomodate for present practice and user expectations. Similar things may apply to math (or may not apply). Regards, Martin.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Unicode and math symbols***From:*Chris Rowley <C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk>

**References**:**Re: Unicode and math symbols***From:*bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>

- Prev by Date:
**Checksums (was re: 8r fonts)** - Next by Date:
**Re: Unicode and math symbols** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Unicode and math symbols** - Next by thread:
**Re: Unicode and math symbols** - Index(es):