From: Lorna_Priest@sil.org
Date: Fri Nov 02 2007 - 12:22:25 CST
unicode-bounce@unicode.org wrote on 10/31/2007 11:41:17 PM:
> Further, a set of chemical symbols and some other characters have been
> added - these are not unifiable and should have been requested perhaps
> by the STIX group for encoding. The only reason that I can see why that
> wasn't done is that the collaboration with Unicode involved the
> mathematicians, not the chemists, so nobody could speak with authority
> on how some of these symbols were used in text.
There is an interesting article by Barbara Beeton called "The STIX Project
-- From Unicode to fonts" in the latest TUGboat, Vol 28 (2007), No. 3. The
online version appears to only be available to members:
http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/Contents/contents28-3.html. However, Barbara
says 'What wasn't accepted, and why not?: In spite of the generally high
level of acceptance of characters proposed by STIX, the UTC rejected some
symbols. The reason for most rejections was that they weren't "math".
Symbols used by other disciplines (astronomy, meteorology) were not
considered to be relevant to the STIX request; it was suggested than an
organization involved in those disciplines should make a separate
submission, at which time it would be considered on its own merits.'
Lorna
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 02 2007 - 12:25:35 CST