Mon, 3 Feb 2003 00:30:53 +0100
David Carlisle writes:
> > > whether that is worth doing, I don't know. I guess as part of the exercise we
> > > should perhaps build an extended list of all mapping from unicode to known
> > > (abd used) encoding-specific commands.
> > I'm in.
> > roozbeh
> Additions (or especially) corrections to the <latex> field in
> are always welcome.
as Roozbeh said, this would need some better idea what the semantics of that
field are, the contents looks rather ... (not saying :-) ...
> The TeX support for various SGML/XML/Unicode tools is derived from
> this file most notably Sebastian's jadetex and passivetex systems for
> dsssl and xsl respectively, which is where the file originated,
> although this version is distributed as part of the MathML specification
well, if we would like to see decent TeX support it might be good to get some
grip on that but first it would need a clear understanding of the fields, eg
what is the text/math notation supposed to mean? is this also TeX related?
i guess with a suitable utf8 support plus a suitable translation from
fontencoding specific commands (LICR) to math commands, (ie something like
inpmath) we could come up with a list for unicode that would allow better
support than what is currently in that file, since that would then work
consistently throughout text and math selecting the right glyphs inside TeX as