From: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com>

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:18:18 -0400

Message-ID: <ce9128ae0604241218o9ee77e9k4a61442ab93bce3a@mail.gmail.com>

To: "Bruce Miller" <bruce.miller@nist.gov>

Cc: www-math@w3.org

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:18:18 -0400

Message-ID: <ce9128ae0604241218o9ee77e9k4a61442ab93bce3a@mail.gmail.com>

To: "Bruce Miller" <bruce.miller@nist.gov>

Cc: www-math@w3.org

Bruce, See my comments below about unicode and double-struck D. Stan On 4/24/06, Bruce Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov> wrote: In other words, it seems to have been another historical development > that we're kinda stuck with. As David says below: "That's life" [Stan] We are not "Stuck with it." It is very fortunate (and no accident) that it is worded this way. (See my earlier many to many mapping comment.) Mathematics provides a special challenge to unicode because a large collection of characters are re-used with alternative meanings on a regular basis. The formal mathematical definition of differential depends very heavily on the mathematical domain intended by the author and the differences could be important. So it can be wrong to map the character to one specific precise mathematical definition with this character in unicode. The current wording is needed so that authors are free to re-use the characters in other mathematical contexts. This re-use is deliberate. Authors often re-use the symbol because a new concept behaves in a similar fashion to the the original use of the character. The phrase "often used for differentials" is about as far as you can go. [Stan] > -- > bruce.miller@nist.gov > http://math.nist.gov/~BMiller/ > >Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 19:18:26 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:37 UTC
*