From: Hans Aberg (haberg-1@telia.com)
Date: Wed Apr 13 2011 - 09:03:55 CDT
On 13 Apr 2011, at 15:28, Julian Bradfield wrote:
>>
>> 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.
I think it had been not used but not very common in the days of led typesetting.
>>>> 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.
...
>> 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.
>
> See
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.0434v2
> (third line of the abstract)
> for a concrete example by working mathematicians.
Another question would be if it is necessary for expressing the semantics of the paper, that is, their usage is so locked down that it would be hard to not rewrite it.
Hans
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 13 2011 - 09:06:10 CDT