Re: Update to unicode.xml

I verified  the latex set this morning and I think you are right that we 
can not probably do better for the Unicode-to-LaTeX mapping. I attach 
the updated LaTeX-commands.diff. Since I need the LaTeX-to-Unicode 
mapping for my math converter, I now only take the "AMS" set as a 
reference (+ some commands from itex2MML). The remaining issues for the 
AMS set are the duplicate in 
as well as the question mark for <AMS>\doublebarwedge ?</AMS> (should it 
be \doublebarwedge or, to match unicode-math \vardoublebarwedge?).

Later, I'll try to analyze more carefully the difference between what I 
get from unicode.xml and itex2MML (mathclass etc) and see if there is 
anything relevant to say.

More comments below.

>> - Some Arabic Letters (U+0627-U+063A and Arabic mathematical alphabetic
>> symbol) should probably have mathclass="A" since they are used as
>> mathematical variables.
> unicode still at revison 13, so this hasn't changed (unless I decide 
> to break from exact matching of mathclass data with the Unicode data) 
Do you know when the Unicode group will consider this change?  (and 
whether they have approved that?)

> On 03/07/2014 13:49, Patrick Ion wrote:
>> I would urge you to change the "nameless" <latex> entries to a
>> 'set="latex-historical">' at least so as not to lose the record of
>> where people may have got their authoritative info
So it seems that this request to add set="latex-historical" has been 
ignored. In my opinion, keeping these "latex-historical" entries is not 
really useful since the changes are already recorded in the CVS history, 
and actually I believe using revision control system is the proper way 
to record this kind of info. The only potential problem I see is that 
this CVS repository does not seem public... or is there at least a 
public web page for that?

Frédéric Wang

Received on Saturday, 13 September 2014 12:11:43 UTC