On 7/13/2012 1:57 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
That document is 164 pages long. I would be interested in examining it
after someone else has done the background work of a first pass at
identifying which characters are already encoded. This is sort of an
emoji/wingdings/webdings scenario, I guess. Michael Everson *
http://www.evertype.com/
The process of encoding mathematical characters has used experts from a
coalition of publishers to help make the differentiation between
"ad-hoc" and "conventional" symbols. Only if there's a convention around
the use of a symbol does it deserve encoding. If there's been a budding
convention around some symbol (republication across other works) that
was missed by this process, it would be nice to get access to this
information from participants.
A./
PS: earlier versions of this document have been consulted in the process
of completing the math repertoire
