On Tue, 20 May 2014, William F Hammond wrote:

    On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:31 AM, David Carlisle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

    > For that use I'd think
    > a variant declaration which would define \mathbf to flip the mathcodes
    > into the U+1Dxxx block
    > using the base font rather than define it as a swutch to new \fam
    > (\mathgroup)  and  would be useful.

    So long as one minds the gaps in U+1Dxxx (actually the several gaps for
    which the unicode folk seem to have thought the characters were previously
    defined in the U+21xx block), though maybe it's not that much of an issue
    for \mathbf itself as opposed to \mathcal, \mathfrak, and \mathbb.

    At least they were thoughtful enough to leave those slots empty.  :-)

but there's one pseudo-overlap:
1D48D (italic "ell") is often
replaced or substituted by 2113
(the curly "ell") by meticulous
authors.

and it could be claimed that the
power set, which was originally
(in the unicode 2 manual) listed
as a meaning for 2118, hasn't
been properly accommodated, since
the shape shown in version 2 was
obviously the weierstrass p (now
corrected), and the shape of the
script P at 104AB is not suitable
for use as the power set.  but all
the slots in the 2100-214F block
have been filled in, so the power
set has been effectively excluded.
(i'll pursue that with the utc.)

    Just seizing the opportunity to make everyone aware of the gaps.

all is certainly not perfect.
but whoever is creating the latex
xupport for unicode fonts should
"do the right thing" so the users
don't have to be concerned in
most cases.
					-- bb