On 21/05/2014 13:41, Will Robertson wrote:
> On 21 May 2014, at 8:35 pm, David Carlisle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 21/05/2014 11:49, Will Robertson wrote:
>>> On 20 May 2014, at 11:34 pm, Ulrike Fischer
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>   wrote:
>>>> So in my opinion the current \mathbf-etc setup in unicode-math
>>>> actually did the right thing and improved the standard
>>>> \math-commands.
>>> Im replying out of order, but Im still inclined to agree with you here :)
>>> The big problem was not handling \mathit properly.
>> or at least the problem is more apparent for italic as the differences between
>> math and text setting are more glaring in that case:-)
> Well, I think from the foregoing discussing (correct me if Im wrong on this!) that we all roughly agree that a suitable OpenType math font with bold glyphs in plane 1 will still be a sensible default for \mathbf, albeit with an obvious override possible (both as a package option and at math-font-load time) when a text bold font is desired instead for multi-letter identifiers.

I think it should be available as a possibility, but not as a default 
(and not required very often).

You need to use a text font for multi-letter identifier case and it 
would look odd if single and
two letter identifiers were coming from separate fonts,
so most of the time you need to use the same font for the single letter 

If a package is setting up a font family for which there is no natural 
bold font,
and for which the base font has bold glyphs in the unicode slots
then obviously it makes sense to use that as the default for that font 

Or if an end user knows that in a particular document that \mathbf is 
only used
with single letter arguments and wants to use the base font, there 
should be an
easy way to select that, but this has to be a user option given the 
usage in a particular
document, so not a default.

> \mathit is just wrong as it currently stands.
>>> It has been possible for a long time to select a text font for a math alphabet in unicode-math, but this feature was probably not documented very well.
>>> If you try to select a particular unicode range such as \mathbfup and a font simply doesnt have it (well, it only checks A I think), the remapping doesnt occur and you get the ascii-range glyphs:
>> Yes, although I think what's needed is an explicit way to do this rather than relying on heuristics
> Agreed for sure.
>> for example while answering a tex.sx question I wanted to use rsfs (or euler) for script in addition or instead of
>> the script in stix because well just because that's what the question asked for, and it seemed  that the easiest way
>> currently is to use \mathup{\euler{A B C to disable the mathcode mapping which works but looks a bit odd.
> Most certainly, this is not what we should be asking users to do.
> This (arbitrary \mathXYZ alphabet support) was always in the works but time got away from me.
> Cheers,
> Will

Yes I didn't mean that that was ideal markup (and I may have missed 
something better in the existing code)
but for a tex.sx answer where I didn't want to be redefining internals 
it seemed at least an approach that
I could give some explanation of why it worked.

I just mentioned it as it seemed relevant., in that the functionality 
was requested and is, as you say,
basically already available in unicode-math.


hope what I said there is true:-)

I feel I should say  as I seem to be doing more than my fair share of 
the "complaints"
that unicode-math does a pretty impressive job of taming otf math fonts 
and bringing them in to TeX
it's only the surface syntax that we are arguing about really:-)