> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 17:43:56 +0100 > From: Thierry Bouche <[log in to unmask]> > > Nope. The really old tradition did know nothing about lining (also > called "english" in France ;-) digits, anything used old style, which > you still can see in the scan of a rather recent book by H. Cartan > I posted somewhere in page of the Latex navigator. Yes. I remember an old book of log tables, that used exclusively old style digits. It was difficult to use, at least for me. > > There have been modern attempts to do what you're refering to. (I had > a vote about the 3 possible styles, but I cannot make statistics about > the voter's taste, as they were so few -- you can have a look at > http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~bouche/tex/mathtests/OS-ornot-OS-e.html > if you have some spare time to loose...) Count me under half/half > > I think that you're point is one point in a myriad of > possibilities. If you replace `must' by `could' in your discussion, I > heartily agree with you, but notice that what you describe is easily > done with current latex (redefine most \the, \MakeUpperLower-case, > etc.) Exactly. I think that this style, while not the only style for math typesetting, is logical and aestetically pleasing -- and easy to implement. In fact, I might implement it myself if I have some free time. -- Good luck -Boris http://www.plmsc.psu.edu/~boris/