From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>

Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 16:38:59 +0100

Message-ID: <53B42793.2000905@nag.co.uk>

To: Frédéric WANG <fred.wang@free.fr>, "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>

CC: Christian Lerch <christian.p.lerch@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 16:38:59 +0100

Message-ID: <53B42793.2000905@nag.co.uk>

To: Frédéric WANG <fred.wang@free.fr>, "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>

CC: Christian Lerch <christian.p.lerch@gmail.com>

On 02/07/2014 16:22, Frédéric WANG wrote: > As I recall, the last time I checked unicode.xml, there were several > sets with different mappings (AMS, IIEE etc) and some of them clearly > had mistakes, so that was a bit messy. Yes but (unless I broke them) the "publisher" entries in the file are historical data relating to publishers internal character tables as input data to forming the stix submission to unicode so I'm not sure I can change them now (but on the other hand they are not really that useful to anyone apart from historians:-) > Personally, I don't mind dropping the old TeX mappings as long as a > clear list of TeX mapping for math char commands is provided, on which > one can rely on. Yes I think I'm going to drop the "nameless" <latex> entries and try to maintain entries like the new ones that specifically reference a latex package such as unicode-math so that if you load that package (or say you are emulating that package) the names should work (even if one can argue about the actual names) DavidReceived on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 15:39:32 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:47 UTC
*