> Date:         Fri, 9 Feb 2001 17:43:56 +0100
> From: Thierry Bouche <[log in to unmask]>

>
> Nope. The really old tradition did know nothing about lining (also
> called "english" in France ;-) digits, anything used old style, which
> you still can see in the scan of a rather recent book by H. Cartan
> I posted somewhere in page of the Latex navigator.

Yes. I remember an old book of log tables, that used exclusively old
style digits. It was difficult to use, at least for me.


>
> There have been modern attempts to do what you're refering to. (I had
> a vote about the 3 possible styles, but I cannot make statistics about
> the voter's taste, as they were so few -- you can have a look at
> http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~bouche/tex/mathtests/OS-ornot-OS-e.html
> if you have some spare time to loose...)

Count me under half/half

>
> I think that you're point is one point in a myriad of
> possibilities. If you replace `must' by `could' in your discussion, I
> heartily agree with you, but notice that what you describe is easily
> done with current latex (redefine most \the, \MakeUpperLower-case,
> etc.)

Exactly. I think that this style, while not the only style for math
typesetting, is logical and aestetically pleasing -- and easy to
implement. In fact, I might implement it myself if I have some free
time.

--
Good luck

-Boris
http://www.plmsc.psu.edu/~boris/