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

Re: Inverted (=reflected) N

Y&Y, Inc. wrote --

> There are many examples of such things:
What things?

> 
> mu	micro
> Omega	Ohm
> Delta	increment
> Sigma	summation
> Pi	product
> middot	periodcentered
> 
> These correspond to the many-to-many relationship between characters and
> glyphs.

No they do not; they are just synonyms for glyphs.

> We often think only of how one character can be repesented in several
> different
> ways (think of the two forms of a and the two forms of g for example).

I am just waiting until Unicode decides these should get different names!

> But there
> are also plenty of examples where one glyph stands for more than one
> character.

I am not sure that glyphs "stand for" characters at all.

> 
> Using the `not invented here' philosophy (which occurs no only in the TeX
> world!),
> Microsoft has consistenly used a name different from the one used by Adobe
> when
> there were two names.

Two names for what?

> Indeed the above come directly from comparable
> TrueType and Type 1 fonts.  You can find more if you compare the TrueType
> and Type 1 version of Lucida Sans Unicode.
> 

It would seem to me to make more sense if the names of the glyphs were
decided by the font designer then this particular problem would not arise.

But I know that you are talking about a world with fixed names (no
synonyms allowed); but there will never be one such fixed list, so why
not prepare for the world of multiple tables or, better, persuade the
"not made here" worlds to support synonyms.

Even if we do choose to use one of the Lucida glyph name systems as
one possible set of names for TeX or MathML mathematical entities (or
glyphs) this will still be the choice of that user community and it
will not get any closer to an impossible ideal of unique names.

However, this is no reason not to do it even if Lucida does misuse inv:-).


chris

chris