Re: [Groff] text variants

[Dave Kemper]

> \[t{no,+-,mu,di}] should be used in textual, \[{no,+-,mu,di}] in
> mathematical context.  Normally, the latter glyphs are special glyphs
> (this is, in font `S'), and its vertical offsets make them not blend
> well into surrounding text.

Hi Werner,

groff_char does seem to address this issue regarding other glyphs.  It
says, "Entries marked with `***' denote glyphs for mathematical
purposes (mainly used for DVI output).  Normally, such glyphs have
metrics which make them unusable in normal text."  This seems to
correlate with what you said above about the \[{no,+-,mu,di}] glyphs.
Thus, it seems to me that were those four glyphs marked with ***, the
purpose of their "text variant" versions would be deducible.

>> The groff info pages don't mention text variants at all.  This seems
>> to be an oversight in the documentation.
>
> Patches are welcomed :-)

If my supposition above is correct, I'll create a patch to add the ***
marker to the four glyphs in question.

Also, both the mathematical and text glyph of each pair have the same
Unicode value, and groff seems to interpret the Unicode strings as the
mathematical-context versions of these glyphs.  (That is, e.g.,
\[u00D7] outputs the glyph represented by \[mu] rather than \[tmu].)
Does this make sense as the default?