> 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. Suggestions welcome... 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) David ________________________________________________________________________ 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: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________