Dear List, currently, the lib/unicodesymbols file in the devel branch (because of my patch at http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/7600) uses a mix of \mathscr vs. \mathcal to represent "SCRIPT ..." vs. "MATHEMATICAL SCRIPT ..." unicode characters.
We have to take a decision: a) treat the default LaTeX math alphabet \mathcal as a valid MATHEMATICAL SCRIPT alphabet, or b) consider Calligraphic and Script alphabets as distinct entities (because \mathscr look more like "SCRIPT" and the mathrsfs glyphs look more like the sample glyphs of the Unicode "... SCRIPT ..." characters. I prefer a), because: * Unicode and MathML define just one mathematical script alphabet. (The XITS OpenType math fonts provide the "calligraphic" letters as a stylistic variant - see unicode-math documentation http://mirror.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/unicode-math/unicode-math.pdf .) * This way capital 'SCRIPT' letters can be mapped without the need of an external package -> avoids the "LyX autoselected packages" problems. And without a new math alphabet (also important because of the TeX limit of just 16 math alphabets easily hit with advanced math typesetting). * The user can select different fonts for \mathcal with one of the packages eucal Euler Script font, part of amsmath, calrsfs Ralph Smith's Formal Script via \mathcal instead of \mathscr, rsfso Ralph Smith's Formal Script with the slant substantially reduced. The output is quite similar to that from the Adobe Mathematical Pi script font. urwchancal Zapf chancery (also providing small script letters), as well as with a "generic" math-font package like "fourier" (which, however, changes all math fonts and the text font). If there is a consensus, I can provide a patch. Günter
