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

Re: Inverted (=reflected) N

> b wrote ---

>> i think this would probably be a good occasion to impose some uniformity
>> on this notation.  proposal:
>> - Xinv -- inverted top-to-bottom
>> - Xrefl -- mirrored left-to-right
>> - Xrot -- rotated 180\deg so that the top is now the bottom, etc.

> I would be happy with those names: of course, for letters with some
> symmetry (eg N, A, E) two of these names will both be applicable to
> the same glyph.  Thus one also needs some precedence rule to get a
> canonical name.  {See, I can still apply some of that group theory:-)

While I agree with the logic of this naming scheme, I'm afraid that
the glyph names in existing AFM files aren't always systematic, not 
to mention that some glpyhs are named by meaning rather than form, 
i.e. "suchthat" rather than "epsiloninv" (actually "epsilonrot") 
or even "nabla" instead of "Deltainv". It is certainly possible to
introduce a consistent naming scheme in our .etx and .mtx files, 
but that doesn't solve all problems.

Cheers, Ulrik.

P.S. On a different subject:  I happened to notice that a new draft
of the HTML-Math working group has been released in early January,
one chapter of which also discusses entitiy names. As usual, you 
can find it at   http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-math/