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

25 messages
12
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 Hi Bruce, My guess would be that for mathcal & mathsrc, you should indeed keep the plane1 conversion (or do mathvariant="script", which is now equivalent in Gecko). So what currently LaTeXML does is the right thing to do: use the script A for both: $𝒜𝒜$ (or $AA) Then apply the appropriate CSS style. For example .ltx_font_mathcaligraphic { font-family: "Latin Modern Math"; -moz-font-feature-settings: "aalt"; } .ltx_font_mathscript { font-family: "Latin Modern Math"; } seems to work for me (the difference between the two glyphs is not obvious, disable/enable moz-font-feature-settings and zoom in to see the effect). Of course, the problem is to handle the font & transform, which do not seem consistent between the various fonts... So would be good to have something standardized! And also, MathJax has his own non-standard way to handle that LaTeXML might need to deal with too. Le 16/07/2014 00:49, Miller, Bruce R a écrit : > Indeed! I did some preliminary experimentation on this subject, > so that in the current system, > latexmlmath --preload=amsmath.sty '\mathcal{A} \neq \mathscr{A}' > gives > > > 𝒜 > > 𝒜 > >$ > > Of course, this _cant_ work as is, having taken so much trouble converting > the A to the appropriate plane-1 code point! (thinking it was The Right Thing to do!) > Using --noplane1 disables that, so that both A's end up as plain latin A, > and then CSS has a good chance of mapping the two cases to the appropriate fonts. > But I haven't spent any time yet trying to figure out _what_ 2 portable, appropriate fonts > I should use.  Here's where the MathJax folks have a definite leg-up on me! > (Or, where web fonts would be useful, as you've often suggested!) > > bruce -- Frédéric Wang maths-informatique-jeux.com/blog/frederic _______________________________________________ dev-tech-mathml mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-mathml
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 Hi, @Fred could you elaborate how MathJax's implementation is non-standard? We're using mathvariant=script with a custom class (MJX-tex-caligraphic) to style that which is pretty much what David Carlisle wrote on the MathWG thread linked above (which, btw, I wouldn't understand as a public statement of the MathWG btw though his comments on the Unicode decision on this are obviously relevant). If there's interest at Mozilla to work something out that can be used automatically across renderers, we'd be happy to get together. Even if the MathWG considers this unimportant at this point, I'm guessing they would take to a joint effort seriously. Regards, Peter. On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 8:03:18 AM UTC+2, fred wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > > > My guess would be that for mathcal & mathsrc, you should indeed keep the > > plane1 conversion (or do mathvariant="script", which is now equivalent > > in Gecko). So what currently LaTeXML does is the right thing to do: use > > the script A for both: > > > > $𝒜 > class="ltx_font_mathscript">𝒜$ > > > > (or $> mathvariant="script">A > mathvariant="script">A) > > > > Then apply the appropriate CSS style. For example > > > > .ltx_font_mathcaligraphic { > > font-family: "Latin Modern Math"; > > -moz-font-feature-settings: "aalt"; > > } > > .ltx_font_mathscript { > > font-family: "Latin Modern Math"; > > } > > > > seems to work for me (the difference between the two glyphs is not > > obvious, disable/enable moz-font-feature-settings and zoom in to see the > > effect). Of course, the problem is to handle the font & transform, which > > do not seem consistent between the various fonts... So would be good to > > have something standardized! And also, MathJax has his own non-standard > > way to handle that LaTeXML might need to deal with too. > > > > Le 16/07/2014 00:49, Miller, Bruce R a écrit : > > > Indeed! I did some preliminary experimentation on this subject, > > > so that in the current system, > > > latexmlmath --preload=amsmath.sty '\mathcal{A} \neq \mathscr{A}' > > > gives > > > > > > > > > 𝒜 > > > > > > 𝒜 > > > > > >$ > > > > > > Of course, this _cant_ work as is, having taken so much trouble converting > > > the A to the appropriate plane-1 code point! (thinking it was The Right Thing to do!) > > > Using --noplane1 disables that, so that both A's end up as plain latin A, > > > and then CSS has a good chance of mapping the two cases to the appropriate fonts. > > > But I haven't spent any time yet trying to figure out _what_ 2 portable, appropriate fonts > > > I should use.  Here's where the MathJax folks have a definite leg-up on me! > > > (Or, where web fonts would be useful, as you've often suggested!) > > > > > > bruce > > > > -- > > Frédéric Wang > > maths-informatique-jeux.com/blog/frederic _______________________________________________ dev-tech-mathml mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-mathml
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 In reply to this post by Frédéric WANG On 16/07/2014 20:18, Frédéric Wang wrote: > Given that standardizing new  mathvariants at the MathWG is not  > possible, I believe people working on the OpenType font format and  > on math fonts should try to agree on the OpenType tags to use  > (apparently "onum" is already standard). A real alternative would be to try to get an extra alphabet added to Unicode, that would be a long haul solution to get it in and then to get fonts to support whatever new codepoints are assigned but that would make it easier to do this in a cross platform way. Do you think we should try? David _______________________________________________ dev-tech-mathml mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-mathml
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 In reply to this post by Frédéric WANG Le 16/07/2014 23:38, David Carlisle a écrit : > A real alternative would be to try to get an extra alphabet added to > Unicode, > that would be a long haul solution to get it in and then to get fonts to > support > whatever new codepoints are assigned but that would make it easier to do > this in a cross platform way. > > Do you think we should try? IIUC, this won't really help since the "semantics requirement" is not for the mathvariant attribute itself but for adding new code points into Unicode (??)... Again, I don't really have any opinion on mathvariants ; but that does not seem to be a very high priority if authors can already rely on standard CSS + OpenType methods and existing math fonts. Fixing the font issues will probably be faster than adding Unicode code point. -- Frédéric Wang maths-informatique-jeux.com/blog/frederic _______________________________________________ dev-tech-mathml mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-mathml
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 In reply to this post by Frédéric WANG On 16/07/2014 22:44, Frédéric Wang wrote: > It's because you are talking about the syntax of the MathML markup > while I'm talking about its semantics. AFAIK, using a class name > "MJX-..." to change the rendering behavior of elements other than by > CSS styling is non-standard = not defined in any standard. It's not defined by MathML but it is explicitly not defined (thus allowed) by MathML, the definition of class(in 2.1.6) is  > Associates the element with a set of style classes for use with [XSLT] and [CSS21].  > Typically this would be a space separated sequence of words, but this is not specified by MathML. so it explicitly sanctions XSLT transforms rather than css to pick up the class: times and language fashions change, but using javascript rather than xslt isn't really any different. If different systems are using   to distinguish calligraphic rather than script, then some kind of note or even informal agreement to use the same class names is probably a pragmatic solution. whether they use css or c++ or javascript to cause that class attribute to have any effect isn't really the concern of the MathML spec.  From the mathml spec viewpoint that's really saying that a script A and calligraphic A are the "same" but one is just styled differently In some cases that is definitely a reasonable description of reality.   I'm sure though there are some documents that use the two alphabets in an intentionally distinct manner. using class for that is arguably less than ideal however the alternative of getting a new calligraphic alphabet added to unicode and (perhaps) a new calligraphic mathvariant to match , and then getting fonts updated to use the new Unicode code has lots of procedural and time disadvantages, it would take years to get deployed and if used would probably have bad fallback in systems without updated fonts. That's not to say it shouldn't be attempted. Especially if browser and font implementers all asked for that, and there were published documents using both forms in the same expression.... David _______________________________________________ dev-tech-mathml mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-mathml
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 In reply to this post by Frédéric WANG Le 17/07/2014 10:31, David Carlisle a écrit : > Sorry I don't understand that comment at all, if I write  MathML to TeX > converter ion XSLT and choose to > detect A to generate \mathcal{A} then the wuoted > paragraph is telling me that's OK. > XSLT is only being used as an example transformational mechanism there, > if you write the same thing in javascript > the same rules apply. It's because I'm considering the MathJax output a "MathML rendering engine" while in your comparison with XSLT your are considering it a "transformation mechanism". But whatever the point of view, the interpretation of the class="MJX-..." to generate a specific rendering is specific to MathJax, to the XSLT transform or to your transformation mechanism. So if you don't like the term non-standard, call it an "extension of MathML", a "special behavior" or a "proprietary feature". But still that won't change that the only guarantee you have when passing "A" is that it will rendered as an italic A by a MathML rendering engines + optionally some CSS style if you provide a stylesheet. AFAIK, any other behavior is not defined by existing Web standards. > No that is exact;y what the mathml spec does _not_ say. It explicitly > says in the paragraph I quoted earlier that a MathML generator such > LaTeXML may use the class attribute to affect the styling  and that it > _may_ use css syntax in that attribute, but even if css syntax is used > it does not say that css has to be used to render it "Typically this > would be a space separated sequence of words, but this is not specified > by MathML." So the only thing you're saying is that MathML is not so strict on the interpretation of the class attribute. But still, I don't see where it is specified in the MathML spec that the exact class="MJX-..." is to be interpreted as the MathJax rendering does, so to me this behavior is not standardized and specific to MathJax. I say "non-standard" for something that is not defined by any standard while for you anything that does not contradict the spec seems to be "standard". Well, that's probably a different point of view, but for me it's a problem to rely on a feature specific to only one rendering engine... > That would be good but do you have a suggestion? The only suggestions > that I'm aware of currently are using a class then > using css elsewhere to select the font features as you demonstrated > earlier. Or getting a change to Unicode to distinguish > these characters (which has possibly a simpler end story but far more > complicated procedural path to reach that) It seems that the only reasonable change is to define new unicode points and mathvariants. Or to leave this undefined in the MathML spec and leave the definition of specific rendering to other specifications like CSS or Open Font Format. > Well yes that's the question: when they decided on this last time they > decided that calligraphic and script were just font choices > typically to get a change you/we/someone would have to find a body of > published work that is clearly using mathcal and mathscript > for different uses in the same document. It looks like many people in this thread agree that mathcal and mathscript have different meaning, so that's probably worth considering. > Yes the CSS may be standard but to generate mathml that uses that css > (or equivalent, such as a TeX based typesetter) > don't you in practice need some standardised class names that you > objected to above? or else the styled mathml > will only use the intended alphabet style if used with one target > stylesheet? No you don't need to standardize anything about the class name, the rendering is already defined by CSS / Open Font Format (and as I said, standardizing anything would probably clash with CSS). Authors will just use whatever CSS selectors they want (not just class) and must indeed provide the associated stylesheet... well that's just how we handle Web documents! If that's a problem that e.g. the calligraphic style is lost (e.g. if one disable the document stylesheet or copy the MathML source code) then that certainly is an indication that it has a specific semantic and so again standardizing it as unicode/mathvariant should be considered instead. -- Frédéric Wang maths-informatique-jeux.com/blog/frederic _______________________________________________ dev-tech-mathml mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-mathml
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 In reply to this post by Frédéric WANG Le 17/07/2014 20:35, Deyan Ginev a écrit : > I can see most of the misunderstanding in this thread has arisen from > the double-edged meaning of "non-standard". I guess Frederic meant the > treatment was "para-standard", while Bruce and Peter are taking it to > mean "anti-standard". Reminded me of the good old need to distinguish > between "free as in beer" and "free as in freedom". Yes, thanks for your suggestion on the wording. I think we all agree that "anti-standard" is definitely a bad thing. My point is that "para-standard" is also bad because it encourages people to use something that is known to work only on a specific rendering engine and forces other rendering engines to do the same if they don't want to be incompatible with existing content (cf the story with the -webkit-* CSS prefixes & Webkit's over-dominance on mobile). Here we have the additional problem that MathJax is not a normal Web rendering engine and does not encourage people to use classical Web technologies the normal way but instead throughout its own foo-to-MathML converter, JS API, configuration options & relying on hacks to workaround Javascript or MathML limitations... My personal preference would be that the MathML WG focus on something that is compatible with the rest of Web technologies and thus could at least be implemented in all browsers. So in that particular case, either extending mathvariant in MathML or deferring the styling to other standardization group (since the MathML spec seems to be agnostic with respect to CSS). -- Frédéric Wang maths-informatique-jeux.com/blog/frederic _______________________________________________ dev-tech-mathml mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-mathml
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Open this post in threaded view
|

 In reply to this post by Frédéric WANG Le 17/07/2014 21:39, David Carlisle a écrit :  > MathML is rendered by css and non css systems so I think _unless_ we extend mathml (or more to the point extend Unicode)  the least effort way for the user (and mathml generators) tp get cross system support for calligraphic would be to agree a class name such as then any css based renderer can use standard css selectors to do as you showed but say MS Word or mathematica or TeX or APP/3B2 or any number of other non css renderers can also produce calligraphic.  Nothing of course prevents authors using arbitrary css selectors and arbitrary css styling with the standard fallback that that styling is ignored in non css systems, but a standardised class name (which is hardly a novel idea) allows a wider range of systems to understand the markup. As I see, the HTML and SVG specs only say that the class attribute is used for general processing and affects CSS selectors. Adding reserved class names to indicate special rendering behavior *without* assuming CSS involvement is new to me, so I'm not sure at this point whether this is good or bad thing. As I see, this is just standardizing what MathJax does in order to avoid for the MathML WG issues with mathvariant/unicode and RelaxNG changes... but is it really a good design from a standardization point of view or is it just a quick solution used as a pragmatic approach? It seems that even adding new presentation attributes or defining mathvariant="calligraphic" to temporarily behave differently than the other mathvariant values would be less confusing for CSS users. I think it would be good to have the opinion of someone from Mozilla, here as I don't really like the idea to follow non css systems to define the MathML spec.  > there would be no clash with css all I'm suggesting is that you could add something for mi.calligraphic to the mathml css that you already have. So if someone decides to do .calligraphic { color: red; } to change the color of some HTML elements, he will suddenly see all the MathML formulas generated by a third-party tools in red (well that will happen even if the names are not reserved, but at least the MathML spec remains neutral). If he decides to use some class="calligraphic" on some MathML elements for another purpose than the one in the MathML spec, the elements will unexpectedly have the specific style applied to them. I believe the trend in Gecko is currently to remove arbitrary values from the MathML user agent stylesheet (e.g. default font-family on the $element) to have a minimum set of rules and make the behavior more predictable for Web authors. Adding reserved class names for MathML-only is likely to lead to the opposite effect for people that are used to CSS but don't know the details of the MathML spec. Personally, I'd prefer to let people specify their own CSS themselves rather than trying to magically do something that they may not actually want. -- Frédéric Wang maths-informatique-jeux.com/blog/frederic _______________________________________________ dev-tech-mathml mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-mathml Reply | Threaded Open this post in threaded view | ## Re: [LaTeXML] Fwd: Special TeX/LaTeX fonts in MathML (calligraphy vs. script)  On 17/07/2014 21:50, Frédéric Wang wrote: > Personally, I'd prefer to let people specify their own CSS themselves > rather than trying to magically do something that they may not > actually want. That's not an unreasonable position to take although (in the absence of an update to Unicode and matching updates to fonts, which would be years at least) that would mean that any document using a mathml fragment to be rendered in calligraphic would need at the document level to apply some css to achieve that. That's certainly less convenient for mathml generating tools (as basically it means they can't support calligraphic within the math expression) but I'm not strongly arguing that you should do differently as it is I agree a coherent position to take. But suggesting a class name can't hurt in any case as something like that would be needed in any case for other systems as I said. No need to highlight mathjax theer are many non css based systems Word for example. when I said standardising class names was hardly a novel idea I was alluding to http://microformats.org/and similar initiatives. you could make exactly the same objection against microformat Ben Ward that if a random user stylesheet has a selector for .h-card then odd things might happen. David _______________________________________________ dev-tech-mathml mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-mathml Reply | Threaded Open this post in threaded view | ## Re: [LaTeXML] Fwd: Special TeX/LaTeX fonts in MathML (calligraphy vs. script)  In reply to this post by Frédéric WANG Le 18/07/2014 00:21, David Carlisle a écrit : > That's not an unreasonable position to take although (in the absence of > an update to Unicode and matching updates to fonts, which would be years > at least) that would mean that any document using a mathml fragment to > be rendered in calligraphic would need at the document level to apply > some css to achieve that. That's certainly less convenient for mathml > generating tools (as basically it means they can't support calligraphic > within the math expression) but I'm not strongly arguing that you should > do differently as it is I agree a coherent position to take. > But suggesting a class name can't hurt in any case as something like > that would be needed in any case for other systems as I said. No need to > highlight mathjax theer are many non css based systems Word for example. Well, in that case the discussion and your proposal are clearly motivated by MathJax's specificity. But in general, there are many problems in the MathML specification due to the fact that the spec was written with non-css based systems in mind (before MathJax ever exists) or, depending on the point of view, due to the fact that browser vendors did not involve enough to influence the decisions. So I would personally not buy any argument around "this is needed to make it work with non css based systems". If calligraphic is considered something important then I believe it should be and should have been standardized like the other mathvariant attributes. Adding a temporary solution because the Math WG was not able to get that accepted before does not seem a very good way to handle the issue ; tools and implementers can just agree on such hacks themselves without having to put them explicitly in standards. > > when I said standardising class names was hardly a novel idea I was > alluding to > > http://microformats.org/> > and similar initiatives. > > you could make exactly the same objection against microformat > > Ben Ward > > that if a random user stylesheet has a selector for .h-card then odd > things might happen. As I understand, your "novel idea" is to make some class to suggest some specific rendering behavior without the use of CSS, not to just to indicate class names (anyway, I think Microformats are controversial and other people are suggesting using other methods to convey metadata). If instead it is just adding class names and explicitly saying that the rendering behavior is undefined and that they are just suggestions for possible stylistic use but that implementers are free to ignore that, then I won't mind but that just seems a vacuous statement that does not really help ensuring cross-compatible rendering. -- Frédéric Wang maths-informatique-jeux.com/blog/frederic _______________________________________________ dev-tech-mathml mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-mathml Reply | Threaded Open this post in threaded view | ## Re: [LaTeXML] Fwd: Special TeX/LaTeX fonts in MathML (calligraphy vs. script)  On 18/07/2014 06:33, Frédéric Wang wrote: > Le 18/07/2014 00:21, David Carlisle a écrit : >> That's not an unreasonable position to take although (in the absence of >> an update to Unicode and matching updates to fonts, which would be years >> at least) that would mean that any document using a mathml fragment to >> be rendered in calligraphic would need at the document level to apply >> some css to achieve that. That's certainly less convenient for mathml >> generating tools (as basically it means they can't support calligraphic >> within the math expression) but I'm not strongly arguing that you should >> do differently as it is I agree a coherent position to take. >> But suggesting a class name can't hurt in any case as something like >> that would be needed in any case for other systems as I said. No need to >> highlight mathjax theer are many non css based systems Word for example. > > Well, in that case the discussion and your proposal are clearly > motivated by MathJax's specificity. Perhaps the start of the thread was (I didn't check) but my comments are not motivated by anything MathJax specific (I don't actually know what MathJax does here), usually my comments are biased by a TeX and XSLT background:-) > But in general, there are many problems in the MathML specification > due to the fact that the spec was written with non-css based systems > in mind (before MathJax ever exists) or, depending on the point of > view, due to the fact that browser vendors did not involve enough to > influence the decisions. So I would personally not buy any argument > around "this is needed to make it work with non css based systems". If > calligraphic is considered something important then I believe it > should be and should have been standardized like the other mathvariant > attributes. Yes it's easy to say that "it should be in Unicode" and if it was in Unicode it would be much clearer which markup to use. But at the current time it is not in Unicode. The topic as I thought was what markup to use now, while it isn't in Unicode. > Adding a temporary solution because the Math WG was not able to get > that accepted before does not seem a very good way to handle the issue > ; tools and implementers can just agree on such hacks themselves > without having to put them explicitly in standards. I certainly wouldn't suggest putting it in MathML or any other standard but implementers need somewhere to record any agreement we could certainly have a "Note" under www.w3.org/Math as a vendor neutral place to record any agreement (but I haven't seen much agreement to record so far:-) > >> >> when I said standardising class names was hardly a novel idea I was >> alluding to >> >> http://microformats.org/>> >> and similar initiatives. >> >> you could make exactly the same objection against microformat >> >> Ben Ward >> >> that if a random user stylesheet has a selector for .h-card then odd >> things might happen. > > As I understand, your "novel idea" is to make some class to suggest > some specific rendering behavior without the use of CSS, not to just > to indicate class names I don't think that's novel (and that is how class has always been defined in MathML) but anyway the main point was that standardising class names is hardly a new idea despite the obvious possibility of clashes that you raise. > (anyway, I think Microformats are controversial and other people are > suggesting using other methods to convey metadata). If instead it is > just adding class names and explicitly saying that the rendering > behavior is undefined and that they are just suggestions for possible > stylistic use but that implementers are free to ignore that, then I > won't mind but that just seems a vacuous statement that does not > really help ensuring cross-compatible rendering. > That _is_ the definition of class as far as MathML is concerned. The question is what to we tell makers of mathml generators (tex-to-mathml converters, editors etc) what markup to generate. As far as I can see you are telling them to generate U+1D49C or A and let the end user sort out a request to get calligraphic rather than script in the document level css. I'm suggesting that we could tell then to generate U+1D49C or A and that they may find that popular mathml renderers do the right thing, but if not, the end user sort out a request to get calligraphic rather than script in the document level css. David _______________________________________________ dev-tech-mathml mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-mathml Reply | Threaded Open this post in threaded view | ## Re: [LaTeXML] Fwd: Special TeX/LaTeX fonts in MathML (calligraphy vs. script)  In reply to this post by Frédéric WANG Le 18/07/2014 19:51, Frédéric WANG a écrit : > 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 􏺇 . 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... _______________________________________________ dev-tech-mathml mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-mathml Reply | Threaded Open this post in threaded view | ## Re: [LaTeXML] Fwd: Special TeX/LaTeX fonts in MathML (calligraphy vs. script)  So finally the XITS Math font (https://github.com/khaledhosny/xits-math) works for me. Compare the following markup in Chrome & Firefox with the XITS fonts installed: 𝒜 𝒜 [itex]𝒜$

$𝒜$

$A$

$A$

_______________________________________________ dev-tech-mathml mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-mathml