UNSUBSRIBE 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. > >Lars Hellström