Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:47:35 -0400
Barbara Beeton <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> timothy murphy asked,
> > And isn't it quite sensible to distinguish between text and maths?
> and torsten bronger responded,
> XML doesn't do it and I find this very convenient. In (La)TeX, for
This statement about XML is not helpful without reference to a
particular document type.
For example, gellmu article does provide elements called "math" and
"displaymath", which when formatted to LaTeX switch on the
corresponding math mode.
As LaTeX is evolving it will be possible for gellmu's "alpha" (an
empty element marked up in Gellmu source as \alpha) to be formatted in
LaTeX as (math) \alpha when recursively inside a math element and not
inside either of gellmu's "mbox" or "text", while outside of math
"alpha" could easily be morphed to a suitable unicode point.
And Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Wouldn't "true unicode support" require fonts with 64000 glyphs?
That's roughly the number of points in a single plane of unicode. The
current design provides 16 planes, but I believe that less than half
are defined. Not all of these points correspond to simple glyphs.
For example, some points are combining characters.