for 𝕏, read it as "X" instead of "mathematical double-struck capital X". ** If a script/block/whatever consists of abstract symbols, like the mathematical set, offer to read it using the closest approximation in the character set it's derived from. For each set, prompt using the following logic if the user hasn't already set a default: * First, tell the user how many different Unicode scripts (and blocks if necessary) are contained on the page.
#Latex real numbers how to#
* If the number of characters that would be read using a multi-word description exceeds a user-specified threshold, prompt the user for how to proceed. While doing this, create sub-counts of characters that fall into each Unicode script (Latin, Cyrillic, mathematical notation, etc.). * Pre-parse the entire page and count the number of characters that would be read using a multi-word description. If this is TLDR, the key feature relating to the topic at hand is the point about handling mathematical symbols, so skip everything except that one. It seems like one approach might be something like this, assuming none of them are doing it already.
I avoid using oddball Unicode characters for this reason, but I also feel like at this point the can of worms has been unleashed, and the screen reader authors are going to have to adapt to a more hostile environment. I have the opposite opinion: if we can do real boldface in print, which is the original usage, what's the point of using a black-board version? We have the real thing! But I also understand the opposite opinion, voiced elsewhere in this thread, that open bold lettering is a new case, like italics or fraktur, and we can use it freely in print.
Nothing too serious.Įlegance is entirely subjective. But I have also heard people expressing strong opinions on each side, that's why I made the analogy with tabs-vs-spaces. Others simply use regular boldface because of tradition, or because it's the default style of the journal. There are authors who are adamant against blackboard bold, most famously Donald Knuth and Jean-Pierre Serre. You can find many old and new math texts using either convention. Note: not the folklore of math! The folklore of mathematical typesetting, which is a tiny community. It seems to me that it is part of the folklore. > How good was the typeface? It was so good, some people submitted their papers to IHES precisely for the beauty of the typesetting You also have this semi-anonymous blog post, that laments the decline in quality when the journal in question was acquired by Springer. I will retire my claim of "undisputed" if you find a source that says that the pinnacle of mathematical typesetting is something else :) As for non-neutral sources, you have for example the congratulations on the typesetting by Dieudonnée (who was a member of the IHES), or a more recent article by Haralambous about the Baskerville variant used by the institute. But I cannot find any non-partisan source of my claim. I always thought about it as self-evident, because it was in that journal that Grothendieck published his work, and the same style is used in by the legendary Hermann editor from Paris and by Bourbaki. I don't have any evidence to support this claim. No bug, my bad.> It is? Do you have any supporting evidence for this claim? In short, there should be no need to resize the minus sign for negative numbers as a good font should have a minus sign so that its length blends in well with text. The difference is the kerning: With $-12$ the sign is close to the number, with $10-12$ the minus has appropriate kerning between the numbers. If your editor is unicode capable you can enter the proper minus symbol directly.Įdit: siunitx is able to handle numbers correctly as well.Įdit 2: To respond a bit more to the question asked, there is no typographical difference between a 'minus' and 'negative' sign. It's fine if you use a complete font, but what if you decide to change the math font later? I prefer to use the textminus from the textcomp package. I am not a fan of typing numbers in the text in mathmode.
0 kommentar(er)
