[UEB Maths] Word indicators and spacing

[Phippen, Stephen]

To: UEB Maths Committee
From: Stephen Phippen
Date: 14th October 2005

Responding to Janet's message, and looking at the samples again, I think =
I am coming to the conclusion that although the word indicator method =
for word fragments is technically superior, at least in mathematical =
contexts, it would be more in keeping with UEB if we used the spacing =
method. So for UEB I think I would support the latter.

That the word indicator is technically superior in maths is, I think, =
fairly obvious from the remarks made and the samples themselves; i.e. it =
is unambiguous, the expressions are more balanced and compact, and it =
allows more accurate translation back into print.

But it is adding an extra layer of complexity to a code which is meant =
to be fairly simple in structure. Also, it would require a measure of =
judgement from the transcriber to decide when and when not to use it, =
which I guess we want to avoid in UEB which is meant to be unified =
across subject areas. Another thing is that I suspect the indicator sign =
we have been using and is perhaps the best we can have now, dots 16, =
could be tactually difficult embedded within maths - it is not as =
distinctive as the corresponding sign, dots 1246, used in the BAUK code.

If we use the spacing method, I think we will have to say that such word =
fragments must be spaced from adjacent letters of the same font and =
letter case, whether preceding or following the word fragment. (We would =
also require a space between a preceding capital letter and a lower case =
word fragment, to avoid it being misread as an initial capital to that =
fragment.) A separating space is not so necessary in other cases (e.g. =
before or after numbers, mathematical signs, Greek letters, etc.) and =
can (should?) be omitted. This might cause some imbalance in expressions =
(as shown in the previous samples), but I think would be preferable to =
allowing it up to transcriber discretion as to whether or not to space =
such expressions, as it would lead to ambiguity. (Well, there already is =
ambiguity, but here it would be worse because the reader wouldn't know =
what to expect.)

So, according to this, as regards spacing we would write:

2cos x
sin(A+B) =3D sinA cosB+cosA sinB
X log y
X Log y (capital L)
xLog y (capital L)


--=20
DISCLAIMER:

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is=20
confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended=20
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of the=20
content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify the=20
sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to delete it=20
and any attachments from your system.

RNIB endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by
its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants.  However, it=20
cannot accept any responsibility for any  such which are transmitted.
We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and=20
any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk