From: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:50:36 -0400

To: Murray Sargent <murrays@exchange.microsoft.com>

Cc: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>, "Asmus Freytag (t)" <asmus-inc@ix.netcom.com>, Michel Suignard <michel@suignard.com>

Message-ID: <i7k2ur1xub.fsf@hilbert.math.albany.edu>

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:50:36 -0400

To: Murray Sargent <murrays@exchange.microsoft.com>

Cc: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>, "Asmus Freytag (t)" <asmus-inc@ix.netcom.com>, Michel Suignard <michel@suignard.com>

Message-ID: <i7k2ur1xub.fsf@hilbert.math.albany.edu>

Murray Sargent <murrays@exchange.microsoft.com> writes: > David Carlisle wrote that one could made definitions like > >>U+2102 DOUBLE-STRUCK CAPITAL C = Complex numbers >> >>Leaving U+1D53A free to be defined as a part of a generic >> alphabetic run as >>MATHEMATICAL DOUBLE-STRUCK CAPITAL C I hope we're clear that just because at some point in history the glyph that might have been used for U+1D53A had been used for U+2102 does not mean that the *character* named "DOUBLE-STRUCK CAPITAL C" would be the same as a *character* in the alphabetic series "MATHEMATICAL DOUBLE-STRUCK CAPITAL *". Just to drive home this point, let me note that there are annotations in my (slightly old) copy of the standard for the characters in the U+21xx block corresponding to the vacant slots indicating dedicated mathematical meanings. The characters in the plane 1 mathematical alphabetic series do not have annotations indicating dedicated meanings. There is no need to change the names in U+21xx since already they are different from what should be the mathematical alphabetic series vacant slot names. > One can't change the definitions of the math alphanumerics > now since they are already encoded and Unicode has a > stability guarantee. Not necessary. > In addition they are widely used in technical documents as > defined. We might have been able to get away with such > definitions before the math alphanumerics were added to > the Unicode Standard 3.1 back in March, 2001. My suggestion is simply that the vacant slots be filled. That won't break anything. Of course, it might then take maybe a decade before anyone could rely on them. > For Microsoft Office apps, I wrote routines to work around > the separation of the math alphabetics into the LetterLike > Symbols and math alphanumerics blocks and it's complicated > and even error prone. So I really wish that we had done > something along the lines David suggests. But it's clearly > water over the dam at this point. Yes, *complicated and error prone*. > ... +Asmus and Michel in case they want to defend Unicode's > position of not duplicating characters. I'd argue that > simplicity of implementation should play an important role > in this regard. ... Again, filling in the slots might generate redundant glyph references, depending on glyph choices for the various characters, but would not duplicate characters. And all routes I can imagine for user-generated documents, at least in most of Europe, Australia, North America, and South America involve complicated code such as you describe. -- Bill #mathml #html5 #unicode #unigaps #xhtmlTooComplicatedReceived on Thursday, 25 June 2015 17:53:55 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Thursday, 25 June 2015 17:53:56 UTC
*