[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: More missing glyphs...


this is the easiest of your questions so i think i can answer it :-)

 > Then there are the musical symbols
 > \sharp, \natural and \flat, which should go to the (at that time
 > non-existing) text companion font according to Justin Ziegler. 
 > First question:
 >  Is this really appropriate ? I know that they are really used a lot in

good question. that was the idea back then (and perhaps that should
still happen at least for the extended TS font encoding (which
currently split into several so that we get an official subset that
can really be acomplished also with most PS fonts

 >  some branches of math, but I dont know if anyone uses them in text mode.

it is probably true that some mathematicians put their hands on any
symbol they could reach from within TeX to get more symbols available
(i did use them in my diploma thesis myself :-) and perhaps there is
even an established branch (although i would like to know some more
details before believing the latter) but i would claim it is
sufficiently rare to allow for sacrifying encoding compatibility of
the core in that case.  it is still no problem for me to rerun my
thesis with the new encoding by loading those symbols from either an
extra font.
at least that was the common opinion back then.

however this is something that is worth noting down and we might come
to the conclusion later that we do want them included at least in the
MS? ones

 >  Are the music-packages using these symbols or do they have their own 
 >  ones ?

they have their own and don't use those

 > Second question: 
 >  I do not find these glyphs in TC. Will they be included ? If not, they
 >  *have* to stay in the math encodings, no ?

definitely not core i think (even if they don't end up in TS) but
perhaps then in MS1/2