From: Julian Bradfield (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Apr 13 2011 - 08:28:00 CDT
>On 13 Apr 2011, at 13:34, Julian Bradfield wrote:
>>> 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.
>The similarity of Old English typeface to Fraktur would be a reason
>against adding it.
A traditional Old English is easily distinguishable from a traditional
Fraktur, because of all the fancy hairlines.
>By contrast, bold italic was added, even though it might not have
>been in use, because it was simply not available. Before electronic
>typesetting fonts were expensive, so one would use what one had.
Bold italic has been used for quite a long time.
>So that was the rationale for not adding the Calligraphic style, as
>it was thought of a variation of the Script style, one would normally
>use when available. That is, math text would not use them
>side-by-side even though in principle they could do it.
But math text does use the two side by side with different meanings.
(third line of the abstract)
for a concrete example by working mathematicians.
-- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 13 2011 - 08:30:35 CDT