Re: Proprietary Card Decks

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Wed Apr 13 2011 - 05:59:22 CDT

  • Next message: Julian Bradfield: "Re: Proprietary Card Decks"

    On 13 Apr 2011, at 10:12, Julian Bradfield wrote:

    > On 2011-04-12, Asmus Freytag <> wrote:
    >> (Mathematics has agreed upon semantics for black letter forms, that are
    >> independent of an actual font choice, hence the decision to encode these
    >> as symbols).
    > I disagree (speaking as a mathematician in a field prone to extensive
    > use of semantically distinct letterforms). There is no agreed
    > semantics for black letter forms, though there are a number of fields
    > and subfields where general conventions have been established, and
    > there's a kind of general woolly feeling that if you need a type style
    > for something big and complicated (relative to your setting), then
    > black letter is appropriate.
    > Nobody would bat an eyelid if someone chose to use both a simple German
    > fraktur typeface, and also (for something even more complicated)
    > a fancy traditional "Old English" black letter. Maybe I'll do it in my
    > next paper!

    The principle for adding the mathematical styles is that they can be used side-by-side (i.e., the same letter) in the same text but with different semantic meaning.

    Is that what you do with Fraktur and Old English typefaces?

    There was a similar discussion with the script styles. AMS Fonts use a different style than the one used in Europe which is based on English script, originally a handwriting style, still taught today in Sweden (I think). But in the end, only one script style was added.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 13 2011 - 06:05:11 CDT