Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:07:18 GMT
> Which is the policy?
the file has a long history, and I'm not sure that policy has always
been consistent.. Some things, especially the classification of
characters as math or non math, have not been that systematic I fear.
As you commented earlier, Unicode doesn't really make the distinction in
the same way as TeX.
> "Show a black box if you
> can't do it exactly" or "Show something and display a warning"?
Ideally I think that I'd like the latex field to consistently have
a command that could be used as latex's internal encoding independent
command, together with some latex packages to define any additional
commands needed, so you could switch at the latex level between
displaying the glyph, or faking it with TeX constructs or making a
missing-glyph marker, depending on the fonts available.
If needs be, the latex-unicode support could be a new additional field
if you needed some different markup or attributes to that contained in
the existing field.
Similar problems occur in the ISO entity support without the TeX part,
It's hard to know what to map the ISO jmath entity to given there's no
dotless j in Unicode (to return to a previous example)
(I'd be lynched by the W3C I18N group if I mapped it to a private use
character, currently I map it to j)
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: