Hi Alan,
On 15/11/2010, at 5:57 AM, Alan Munn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In xunicode.sty there's some preliminary definitions for \textrbrackdbl and
> \textlbrackdbl that appear after the \endinput (and are therefore not
> standardly defined.) The suggested definition use x301A and x301B (which come
> from CJK Symbols and Punctuation) as the UTF character.
I wouldn't use these, unless you want them in CJK blocks.
> Is there a reason for using this as opposed to x27E6 and x27E7 (which come
> from Miscellaneous Math Symbols-A)? More fonts seem to have the latter code
> points.
Sure. The comment in Xunicode is:
>>> % Not many fonts support these code-points yet.
>>> % So leave these undefined at present.
>>>
>>> \DeclareUTFcharacter[\UTFencname]{x3008}{\textlangle}
>>> \DeclareUTFcharacter[\UTFencname]{x3009}{\textrangle}
>>> \DeclareUTFcharacter[\UTFencname]{x301A}{\textlbrackdbl}
>>> \DeclareUTFcharacter[\UTFencname]{x301B}{\textrbrackdbl}
For the single angle brackets the names are \textlangle and \textrangle
whereas the math symbols have been \langle and \rangle since the
beginning of TeX.
With the double angle brackets, these were often done in (La)TeX math
as \lbrack\!\lbrack etc.
But now that there is a Unicode slot for these, the math symbol should
have a macro name in unicodemath.sty 's list of symbols.
I'm not sure whether I just made up \textlbrackdbl and \textrbrackdbl
or whether they exist already in (an)other package(s).
In any case, they occur after \endinput so do not affect your
coding at all. They are put there as preparatory to further work,
which may in fact never take place.
Being CJK characters, there needs to be input from others more familiar
with how these characters are meant to be used.
>
> (This is sort of a moot point at the moment, but I use these characters quite
> a bit so I just copied the definitions from xunicode until I discovered that
> in the fonts I was using they're in Misc. Math-A.)
Sure, as math symbols. So if you are doing math, then those are the
ones you should be using, and Xunicode is not involved at all.
However, if you are putting them in text, having some exotic meaning
which is different from what they mean in CJK, then I have no opinion
about which code-points you should be using.
Indeed, in such a case I would advise that you make up your own
macro name for use in the document body. Then in your preamble
define how you get the glyph, and include comments about
this choice and whether it may not be best for future usage.
>
> Alan
>
> --
> Alan Munn
> am...@gmx.com
Hope this helps,
Ross
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Moore ross.mo...@mq.edu.au
Mathematics Department office: E7A-419
Macquarie University tel: +61 (0)2 9850 8955
Sydney, Australia 2109 fax: +61 (0)2 9850 8114
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
