At 14:58 2/3/2003 Monday +0100, you wrote:
>At 10.32 +0100 2003-02-03, David Carlisle wrote:
> >> 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.
> >That's just another way of saying the latex field should have LICR
> >commands. For Latex use only it would be just as easy to define the
> >mappings directly in the latex package files but having them in that XML
> >would I think help translators from XML (especially MathML) to TeX to
> >come up with consistent mappings, as all the MathML entities and
> >character documentation is derived from there.
>IMO some definition of the LICR commands which is distinct from the code in
>the LaTeX packages is needed, since the current state of things is rather
>implicit. It is possible to see that something works in all cases one can
>think of, but it is not possible to see whether it should work in general.
>Take for example \&: is this LICR, or is it a category 12 `&' token that is
>in LICR, or is the LICR missing a \textampersand command? I don't know, but
>I suspect the matter is still undecided.
>Some documentation for the file under discussion might be a good place as
>any to start with a more precise definition of the LICR.