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

**To**:*math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk***Subject**:**Re: More missing glyphs...****From**:*haberg@matematik.su.se (Hans Aberg)***Date**: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 12:32:45 +0200

>>On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Frank Mittelbach wrote: >> it is probably true that some mathematicians put their hands on any >> symbol they could reach from within TeX to get more symbols available >At 11:53 97-04-21, Matthias Clasen wrote: >Yes, that is true. Additionally each branch seems to develop some new >symbols. I could easily come up with 5-10 symbols from mathematical logic >which have not been mentioned in Justin Zieglers work. Perhaps it would be >a good idea to classify possible math glyphs wrt the branches in which >they are used. Then one could include in a standard setup only those >glyphs which are more widely used and create some add-on packages >specifically designed for the need of single branches (e.g. an encoding >for mathematical logic, an encoding for physics, etc). This would also go >in the direction indicated earlier by Frank Mittelbach, i.e. taking things >out of the standard setup. In fact, my hunch is that similar principles as in the development of international documents will be involved in such a project. Hans Aberg

- Prev by Date:
**Re: More missing glyphs...** - Next by Date:
**Re: lozenge** - Prev by thread:
**Re: More missing glyphs...** - Next by thread:
**Re: More missing glyphs...** - Index(es):