Re: [LaTeXML] Fwd: Special TeX/LaTeX fonts in MathML (calligraphy vs. script)

Le 18/07/2014 19:51, Fr=E9d=E9ric WANG a =E9crit :
> Mmh, really? That sounds like a bug in the Latin Modern Math font (as =

> I said, I didn't really check how the glyphs are organized). I expect =

> U+1D49C to contain script, U+1D4D0 to contain bold script and the =

> "calligraphic" glyphs to be somewhere in the fonts (if there are =

> really present in Latin Modern Math) but not at any Unicode position =

> (since Unicode does not have characters for calligraphic). Did you =

> open the font with fontforge to say that? =

So I actually had a quick look at the fonts again and actually most of =

them (GUST fonts and Neo Euler) don't have calligraphic glyphs, so we =

can't access them anyway... The example I gave for Latin Modern Math =

indeed only does a remapping from a script A to a slightly larger script =

A, so that's why Bruce & I didn't see an obvious difference.

Asana Math & STIX Math seems to have both script and calligraphic style, =

but they are arranged in a weird way. The remapping does not seem to be =

done via a font feature tag, but some glyphs are in the PUA so for =

example we can access them with <p style=3D"font-family: Asana =

Math;">&#x10FE87;</p>.

So I guess, the answer is that as long as the font designer don't =

provide script/calligraphic glyphs with consistent mapping, it will not =

be possible to use that anyway :-(

The situation for old style numbers seems slightly better, but still we =

don't have consistent mapping via the "onum" feature...