> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:26:37 +0100 > From: Hans Aberg <[log in to unmask]> > > 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/