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

Re: preliminary EuroTeX paper for review

At 12:05 PM 97/12/08 +0100, Ulrik Vieth wrote:

>Thanks for your comments.  Although I agree that this information
>might be useful, there's a problem in that Unicode doesn't cover all
>the variants of the archaic Greek numerals.  The Mathematica fonts
>have uppercase and lowercase versions 

Which is a mistake, since at that stage there was no miniscule, only
majuscule.  I went through this topic when there was a question about
Digamma in AMS fonts and Lucida New Math.

>while Unicode has only one slot
>for each.  Furthermore, implementations like Yannis' OmegaTimes (see
>TUG'96 proceedings) even have multiple variants of some of these.

Well, we all know that UNICODE is a character standard not a glyph
standard.  So glyhpic variants are not accounted for.  But I think what
you were talking about can be treated as refering to characters,
and those do exist in UNICODE.  As a result, UNICODE numbers
are as useful reference for precision.  One fo the flaws of the original
Cork proposal was that the character set was shown as a printed
table with all sorts ambiguities.  These ambiguities have since been
resolved by stating which PS glyph name each slot corresponds to.

Regards, Berthold.