In typographic circles, old-style figures (OSF) are generally preferred over lining figures (LF) for body text because they integrate better with lowercase letters. There seems to be a trend of returning to typographic elegance, so to speak, with many of the newly designed digital fonts having OSF as the default.
However, there are certain fields where the use of OSF may not be appropriate. Zivatar, a lawyer, has asserted that OSF are not suitable for legal writing on a number of occasions, in the following threads:
Typography for Lawyers
Advice for legal pleadings
Typefaces for use in legal practice
I invite people to comment on whether there are certain fields where one should be using LF instead of OSF, and what the reasons are. While it certainly makes sense to me that LF is better for certain technical fields of writing, I would still like to hear the rationale.
For mathematical writing, for instance, LF would be strongly preferred over OSF. One sees mathematical texts using LF not long after the introduction of LF to the typographic palette, such as 1822’s An Introduction to the Elements of Algebra. I do not remember seeing any mathematical texts from the last century using OSF.
I would venture there must be a few reasons beyond tradition and familiarity for this. For example, one frequently sees multiple levels of super- or subscripting in mathematical writing, and the alignment will be difficult to keep track of for OSF. Consider the following, where the expression on the left is meant to represent Exp(38). Because OSF are used, there is a chance it might be read as Exp(3^8), the expression on the right, especially by readers who are used to seeing LF in mathematical texts.
Also, a LF zero is less likely to be confused with the letter o, which is used in the ’little o notation’, for example.
What do people think about this issue? Are there other fields where LF may be preferred to OSF? What are the advantages and disadvantages each of these types of numerals provides for different fields of writing?
