> -----Original Message-----
> From: Florian Weimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
> I agree that it makes some sense to have a seperate mathematical
> alphabet because mathematically speaking, "v" and "V" are indeed very
> different characters. But having thirteen or so different alphabets
> seems a bit overkill to me.
And m and M are very different when expressing SI unit prefixes.
Still ordinary m and M serves well also for that purpose.
For those of you who haven't seen the "math alphanumerics" proposal,
the following variants are being proposed:
---------------------------------------
Latin A-Z, a-z, with 'gaps' for already defined (in the BMP) characters:
((ordinary ASCII letters for upright non-bold in math context))
bold
italic
bold italic
script (called 'calligraphic' in TeX)
bold script
fraktur
open-face (a.k.a. double-struck, or black-board bold)
open-face italic
sans[-serif]
sans[-serif] bold
sans[-serif] italic
sans[-serif] bold italic
monowidth (n.b. no bold monowidht)
------
Non-accented Greek (plus a few symbols with Greek letter origins):
((ordinary BMP Greek for upright non-bold in math context))
bold
italic
bold italic
sans[-serif] (n.b. no sans-serif italic)
sans[-serif] bold italic
-----
Digits 0-9:
((ordinary ASCII digits for upright non-bold in math context))
bold (n.b. no italic)
open-face (a.k.a. double-struck)
sans[-serif]
sans[-serif] bold
monowidth
-------------------------------------
F.Y.I. from
/kent k
