Re: port x-symbol to GNU emacs 24.

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[email protected]> writes:

> Uwe Brauer writes:
>
>  > Do you have any reference, or is this just a guess?
>
>  >    > Note that it's probably possible to achieve what x-symbol does
>  >    > in 1/5 the code and without defining a new charset or glyphs
>  >    > by simply taking advantage of the fact that most (all?) of
>  >    > those symbols are already in Unicode.
>
> That's almost certainly true; I don't know what kind of math you do so
> I can't be sure the symbols you need are in Unicode, but certainly all
> the math symbols I can remember are in it (I admit I haven't memorized
> the symbol tables in the TeXBook.)  So I think the odds are quite high
> that you can rip out of x-symbol all of the charset code and glyph
> definitions, and just use the macro/character swapping code and input
> methods.

Well, X-Symbol was focused on providing math mainly for LaTeX, and the
STIX project's mission <URL:http://www.stixfonts.org/project.html>
states "All characters/glyphs have been incorporated into Unicode
representation or comparable representation and browsers include program
logic to fully utilize the STIX font set in the electronic
representation of scholarly scientific documents" can more succinctly be
expressed as "let Barbara Beeton dump all of AMSTeX into Unicode".

So indeed I should be surprised if the current state of Unicode did not
actually cover most of X-Symbol satisfactorily by now.

-- 
David Kastrup