[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More missing glyphs...
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: More missing glyphs...
- From: Frank Mittelbach <Frank.Mittelbach@Uni-Mainz.DE>
- Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 21:02:33 +0200
Hans Aberg writes:
> Actually, I think it can be problematic moving out any of the already
> existing glyphs from the math encodings, before first positively ensuring
> that they are not used as math symbols. People may have started using them
> as math symbols, simply because they are accessible, for example.
yes, that is true but we do have them in some encodings, eg OMS OML ...
and those can still be used
> Perhaps such symbols should be classified as "sporadic", with their own
> math encoding.
perhaps. also perhaps MS1/2 might have free slots in the end or
perhaps once can have a final misc encoding for odd symbols. but the
point is that those symbols are not at all likely to be implemented by
any other font than the existing cm series in which case you could
still use the original encodings to get at them