## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

 Options: Use Forum View Use Monospaced Font Show Text Part by Default Condense Mail Headers Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>] Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>] Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

> Date:         Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:26:37 +0100
>
> This is not really what I said; if only math mode is available, one should
> either write "see figure seven.three" or "see figure $7.3$", but not simply
> "see figure 7.3", as the last is both logically wrong, and invites to
> making mistakes in markup.
>
> However, stepping into the question of renderings, one should in this case
> have a special label environment, that makes the labels appear
> consistently, both logically and in rendering. Again, it should not be
> possible to write "see figure 7.3".

If I understand it correctly, Tschichold recommentds only old-style
digits for text (he calls them text digits as different from titling
digits). Therefore I think that in the tradition of old school there
should be difference between '3's in the phrase
In Chapter~3 we will show that $\pi>3$.
The first '3' should be in old-style, the second---in math
style. Also, the command \MakeUppercase should take care of this
distinction, because old-style digits are actually *lowercase*, and
must be converted to upper case when, e.g. in running heads.

A good question is numbers in references and bibiliography, like

See equation~(4), or Annals of Improbable Research, \textbf{2},
pp.~27--32, 1998.

I disagree with Hans: I think they should be in text digits (old-style
if it is used in the copy). Of course this means that old-style must
be used in tags, so in the line
\pi>3                            (3)
the digits '3' must be different in the formula and the tag. This seems
to be logical: tag is not a part of the equation anyway.

What do other people think of this?

--
Good luck

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