Re: [EXTERNAL] a minimal core intent proposal

So that’d mean the spec should “fix unicode names” ?
I would say: Leave that to the math specialists… by configurability or 
by explicit intents.

Paul

On 11 Nov 2022, at 10:28, David Carlisle wrote:

> On 11/11/2022 05:55, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
>
> Murray,
>
> Your example is among the very many inappropriate unicode-name to 
> speak-aloud-name. This will keep coming. E.g. probably most arrows are 
> like that too.
>
> But the script capital p does not correspond to anything I feel is 
> widely known in books with formulæ. So it is probably too much to 
> expect to make this into a minimal intent proposal. I might be biased 
> with some math culture though.
>
> “Just add configurability” is what is needed for such cases, I 
> think.
>
> Paul
>
> Murray's point was that
>
> ℘ U+2118
>
> is not part of a script alphabet, apart from its nonsensical name it  
> is a one-off symbol specific to Weierstrass and distinct from
>
> 𝓅 U+1D4C5 lowercase script p
>
> or
>
> 𝒫 U+1D4AB uppercase script p
>
>
> So If we (choose to) believe that everyone always uses Unicode as 
> documented and never uses U+2118 as a general script letter It should 
> have a special rule to pronounce it as "Weierstrass p"
>
> If we choose not to believe that, it still needs a special speech rule 
> as it is a lower case p with Unicode name "script capital p"
>
> David
>
>
>
> Disclaimer
>
> The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England 
> and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is: 30 
> St. Giles, Oxford, OX1 3LE, United Kingdom. Please see our Privacy 
> Notice <https://www.nag.com/content/privacy-notice> for information on 
> how we process personal data and for details of how to stop or limit 
> communications from us.
>
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses and malware by Microsoft 
> Exchange Online (EOP)