Print

Print


At 10:25 +0000 2001/02/12, David Carlisle wrote:
>It may be worth noting that unicode 3.1 and 3.2 will (assuming the
>current plans go through) have a lot more (~1500 more, If I recall
>correctly) math characters than unicode 3.0. Actually one of the main
>things missing (currently) are long arrows. We (MathML working group)
>are in touch with the Unicode folks to see if there's any chance of
>those being added as well, although time is getting short for further
>additions to 3.1 and 3.2.

Why do you want to add them? -- The semantic meaning of long arrows is
exactly the same as the short ones (or do you know of a counter example).
-- So a long arrow is a different rendering of a short one.

  Hans Aberg