Motion P1788/M0034.01 Notation
Alan Eliasen wrote, in his NO justification:
> Double-struck letters fit with standard mathematical notation
> for number sets, and I have no disagreement with that. If I want
> a double-struck R, it's available, with a bit of work and research,
> as Unicode U+211D, and I can even cut and paste that into any
> Unicode-aware "plaintext" e-mail. Look! â??! A real number!
I interpreted the motion as covering nothing more than the notation
to be used in the publication of the standard.
To address the concerns raised by Alan, the standard would have to
provide also standard *names* for the symbols that can be given as
plain text, e.g. Rbar, IbarRbar etc. -- which some of us use already.
Perhaps standard Latex syntax is not so bad, but even non-standard
syntax is often intelligible, e.g. when using a backslash simply to
indicate that a named symbol is being used, e.g. \Rbar.
I for example do not have direct support for Unicode, or rather the
UTF8 in which SMTP delivers it to me. I translate some of the ones
I recognise to plaintext sequences such as >=, +oo, \subset etc.
(and keep track of the translations). I can look up the hex in a
UTF table, or send a copy to a Windows machine to look at it, when
the context does not suffice to guess what it is.
Michel.
---Sent: 2012-06-06 10:09:34 UTC