Idris asked me about this during the previous thread, before I'd joined this list. Here's a slightly edited version of my reply about osf in documents with math: Well, I did the second-pass macros, and most of the math markup / editing of a recent translation of Thomas Harriot's _Artis Analyticae Praxis_ from 1631 or so, and it (of course) uses old style figures exclusively, pre-dating them, as would any mathematics (or other) text before the latter part of the 19th century. Old-style figures are named thusly since the now standard alternative lining figures are a fairly recent invention --- a Victorian (some would say debased) convention born out of expedience and a desire for better looking tabular material --- many railed against them, Charles Babbage being a notable example of the opposition to them (noting that in tables of logarithms, when used in difficult circumstances (I believe the example was an artillery officer doing ballistic calculations) absolute unambiguous representation could be a matter of life and death and that the extra differentiation provided by ascenders and descenders in numbers was highly desirable --- can't recall if Dr. Asaf Degani revisited this with his NASA reports on typography or no --- if not, he should've). Bringhurst's prescription (in his _Elements of Typographic Style) is perhaps a bit simplistic and doesn't acknowledge the typographical palette which has since become readily available in newer fonts (Hoefler Text in Mac OS X for example affords one proportional lining figures, monospaced lining figures, proportional old-style figures and lining old-style figures --- a text typeface I've been working on goes this even better, adding three-quarter height proportional and monospaced figures, and French versions of the old-style figure versions as well). Bringhurst's rule 3.2.3 would seem a better arbiter, ``Refer typographical disputes to the higher courts of speech and thinking.''. Knuth, in ``Typesetting Concrete Mathematics'' (_Digital Typography_, pg. 369) has a cogent observation when he writes, ``This experience proved to be worthwhile because it taught me that there is a useful and meaningful distinction between text numerals and mathematical numbers.'' There's been some discussion of old-style figures for mathematics on comp.text.tex, but I don't think any absolute statement could reasonably be made. It's certainly valid that using lining figures for mathematics does provide a useful distinction (and it also greatly eases typographic issues such as the placement of super and sub-scripts), but the counter-argument that mathematics is a valid textual discussion form is certainly appropriate as well. Arguably this would be a good place to use Bruce Roger's ``allusive typography'' principle. Anything set in a design more recent than Baskerville should use of lining figures in the absence of a reason not, while older texts could consider the use of old-style figures if concerns such as super and sub script placement can be worked out. But perhaps even that's too simplistic and formulaic. A far more productive thing probably would be to look at actual sample pages to consider things in context (sorry, couldn't resist the pun). Anyway, I hope this helps somewhat and is of use in your consideration. William -- William Adams, publishing specialist voice - 717-731-6707 | Fax - 717-731-6708 www.atlis.com