At 16:23 +0000 2001/02/23, David Carlisle wrote:
>See for example
>part of the MathML2 spec (which became a W3C Recommendation on
I had a look at the document
In 6.3.2, there is the list:
Sans-serif Bold Italic
In my opinion, there are two entries missing:
I think that originally, the Calligraphic font of AMS-Fonts was
intended as a substitute for the RSFS like Script in use in European
manuscripts, but they are sufficiently different that they might be
used side by side in a manuscript.
-- Also, I think earlier discussions here and in math-fonts-discuss
said that the Bold Fraktur look awful in print. But if it is in actual
use in mathematical manuscripts, it should be added. I haven't seen it
myself, though. The only use I have seen of Fraktur it is as Lie
algebras, and I do not know why one would want them to be in bold.
-- In addition, I can mention that if one should be very rigorous and
formal with this idea of adding all the math symbols, then one should
That is, what one now probably will use are the ASCII letters A-Za-z.
Strictly speaking they should have their own mathematical slots, too. I
don't think that this is a very practical suggestion, though, as they
probably will have identical representation with the ASCII letters,
unless one introduces a special math font. So I just mentioned it to
give thought (thinking of math as separate from natural languages).
Strictly speaking, the naming ought to be
Serif Bold Italic
expect that perhaps "Serif Slanted"<bold> = </bold>"Italic", so that
everywhere the word "Italic" should be replaced by "Slanted" (or