Hi!
(You should read the interpreted HTML version of this message, due to two tables below. I know not all of you like that for various reason, but I've tried to up the point size at least, so that it is readable without a magnifier...)
> ME
>
>>Style markup is _already_ used to select fonts, such as
> bold and
italic
> >>fonts. Boldness and italicness can also be
generated
> algorithmically on
> >>many WYSIWYG systems if
special fonts are available. If you
> choose to add
>
>>additional style markup designed to select fonts the
> logical
conclusion is
> >>that such style markup (fraktur, double-strike,
script)
> could be applied to
> >>any font, which would be
dreadful and impossible.
>
> KK
> >Again, nobody has asked
for that. And I'm PDS nobody has
> asked for that!
>
> It is
the logical conclusion of saying that this stuff can't
> be handled
by
> UCS plain text for character searching (different from formula
layout
> perhaps)
I don't understand that sentence. And I don't see how your conclusion is the consequence of anything put forward as an argument in this debate.
> >You
might get some insight into what I mean by catching up
> on LaTeX2e.
Do
> >you think that \frac somehow algorithmically generates
>
fractur letters from
> >an arbitrary font?
>
> No, I
suppose I wouldn't. But are you suggesting that two
> DIFFERENT
kinds
> of markup should be used to make <bold>a</bold>
and
> <fraktur>a</fraktur>?
I'm not sure what you mean. Of course there has to be SOME difference, otherwise how do we ever tell the difference, since a difference is intended.
(You'll need to look at the HTML version of this e-mail, to see the tables correctly.)
Let's review what's available in LaTeX2e and MathML 1:
|
|
LaTeX2e |
MathML 1 ('presentation') |
|
italic single letter identifier shortcut |
i |
N/A (use <mi>i</mi>) |
|
italic identifier |
\mathit{id} |
<mi>id</mi> |
|
upright identifier |
\mathrm{id} |
<mi fontstyle="normal">id</mi> |
|
bold identifier |
\mathbf{id} |
<mi fontweight="bold">id</mi> |
|
'calligraphic'/script identifier |
\mathcal{id} |
<mi>𝒾𝒹</mi> |
|
doublestruck identifier |
\Bbb{ID} |
<mi>𝕀𝔻</mi> |
|
fractur identifier |
\frac{id} |
<mi>𝔦𝔡</mi> |
|
ordinary symbol |
+ |
<mo>+</mo> |
|
bold symbol |
\boldsym{+} |
<mo fontweight="bold">+</mo> |
|
upright digits |
0123 |
<mn>0123</mn> |
|
italic digits |
\mathit{0123} |
<mn fontstyle="italic">0123</mn> |
|
bold digits |
\mathbf{0123} |
<mn fontweight="bold">0123</mn> |
Suggestion (round 0) for a hypothetical MathML 2 and for "my
plain text math" (not intended to be complete, but sufficient for illustration
here):
|
|
p.t.m.à la me |
MathML 2 (à la me) ('presentation') |
|
italic single letter identifier shortcut |
Ii (or i) |
N/A (use <mi>i</mi>) |
|
italic identifier |
I{id} |
<mi>id</mi> |
|
upright identifier |
R{id} |
<mr>id</mr> |
|
bold identifier |
B{id} |
<mb>id</mb> ((or <mi kind="bold">id</mi>)) |
|
'calligraphic'/'script' identifier |
C{id} |
<mc>id</mc> |
|
doublestruck/'bbb' identifier |
D{ID} |
<md>ID</md> |
|
fractur identifier |
F{id} |
<mf>id</mf> ((or <mi kind="fractur">id</mi>)) |
|
ordinary symbol |
+ |
<mo>+</mo> |
|
bold symbol |
B+ |
<ms>+</ms> (or <mo kind="bold">+</mo>) |
|
upright digits |
0123 |
<mn>0123</mn> |
|
italic digits |
I{0123} |
<mn kind="italic">0123</mn> (or <mni>0123</mni>) |
|
bold digits |
B{0123} |
<mn kind="bold">0123</mn> (or <mnb>0123</mnb>) |
Note that this distinguishing markup is right where the identifier is, not somewhere far out in the surroundings.
For p.t.m.à la me, I, R, B, C, D, F, {, and } are new "control" characters for p.t.m., while i and d are themselves (as are the I and D within {} above). { and } (as new control characters) would be used for p.t.m. grouping in general. Note that p.t.m. needs a number of "control" characters anyway in order to convey super/subscripting, over, etc. etc. See any book on LaTeX for inspiration on which math expression structure/display operators to make into "control characters". Note that this involves a lot of syntactic constraints, e.g. {} balancing, what can follow I, that ^^ (superscript control character twice in a row) is an error (maybe recovered in some way), etc. etc. The I, B, D, etc. need not be "combining" characters, anymore than ^ (p.t.m. superscript 'control' character) is 'combining' in the Unicode sense.
B.t.w. I DON'T see a 10-fold increase in verbosity for "MathML 2", relative to MathML 1, here. (Though that could easily be added. ;-)
> >We
appear to live in completely different worlds here. I'm
> quite used
to
> >using both eqn (in its days) and LaTeX, and I'm a bit
>
puzzled as to your
> >arguments. When you have caught up on
LaTeX, and written a few math
> >formulas yourself, and maybe looked a
bit at MathML too,
> maybe you could
> >come back and enlighten
all of us.
>
> I couldn't write a math formula to save my own life.
:-) I
> just make fonts
> and am thinking about architectural
issues.
I’m also thinking about architectural issues, and I find the “math alphabets” proposal to be horribly ill-conceived and shortsighted.
>
>Searching, e.g., for <mb>a</mb> is no more difficult
than
> searching for
> ><mi>&bolda;</mi> (or its
equivalent). The same goes for the
> math markup
>
>for-the-time-being-known-as "plain text math".
>
> I disagree.
Quark XPress has a facility for searching styled
> text,
So does MS Word, for instance.
> but
most
> software does not, and there are many different kinds of
>
markup used even
> today. The internet sure doesn't support this; search
engines
> IGNORE markup.
In order to find e.g. an “upright” math “cos” in MathML documents TODAY, the markup must be considered. Why should ‘fractur’ identifiers be any different in that regard?
/kent
k
> --
> Michael
Everson * Everson Gunn Teoranta * http://www.indigo.ie/egt
> 15 Port Chaeimhghein
Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
> Guthán: +353 1 478 2597 **
Facsa: +353 1 478 2597 (by arrangement)
> 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn;
Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire