- From: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 13:45:48 -0500
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Cc: "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>
David Carlisle writes:
> On 04/11/2018 17:04, William F Hammond wrote:
>> David Carlisle in part:
>>
>>> Syntax to be determined but something in the style of the existing
>>> <surrogate mathvariant="bold" ref="U00041"/>
>>> which maps the "holes" in the math alphabet blocks to the equivalent
>>> bmp character.
>>
>> The holes in the math alphabet blocks represent missing *characters*
>> in those blocks. There are no equivalent BMP *characters*, so one is
>> just borrowing *glyphs* from sporadic BMP characters, each of which arose
>> earlier in the history of unicode for one or more special intentions.
>>
>> -- Bill
>>
>>
> yes I know, I just meant add a similar cross reference element in
> unicode.xml, not that the specific details of the characters were the same.
>
> David
Oh, I know that you knew. In fact you knew before I knew.
I just want to make sure that everyone here knows.
The existence of the holes compromises the Unicode standard.
It forces writers of software for processing LaTeX's
\mathbb, \mathcal, \mathfrak, and all "casting" facilitators
in LaTeX and in other worlds where math is input to write ugly
cumbersome code.
The holes should be filled in the Unicode standard.
I think it would be helpful if your W3C group (does it
currently exist?) went on record saying that the holes
should be filled.
-- Bill
Received on Monday, 5 November 2018 18:46:13 UTC