LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:26:35 +0100
text/plain (60 lines)
Marcin Woli$,1 d(Bski writes:
 > Dnia 2009-10-29, czw o godzinie 14:57 +0100, Heiko Oberdiek pisze:
 > > Result:
 > > * lmtt misses
 > >   * \textperthousand
 > >   * \texttrademark
 > >   * \textservicemark
 > > * qcr (tgcursor) misses
 > >   * \textleftarrow
 > >   * \textrightarrow
 > >   * \textuparrow
 > >   * \textdownarrow
 > That's strange.  I hope Jacko will react to that.  I thought the whole
 > family was supposed to have the same characters.

I agree, it would be desirable if all fonts implement the same glyph set. I
don't think that I'm going to add any other fonts for now, when they provide
yet another subencoding (if anybody needs them he/she can always add them to
textcomp.cfg for now)

 > > Additionally the lm and tg fonts provide glyphs at
 > >   * slot 81/121o/51h  (/Orogate)
 > >   * slot 113/161o/71h (/orogate)
 > >   * slot 115/163o/73h (/longs, U+017F)
 > That's true and we would be more than happy if these could be officially
 > introduced into TS1.  $,1rx(BLong s$,1ry(B is probably something that needs no
 > explanations.  $,1rx(BO rogate$,1ry(B (Polish for $,1rx(Bhorned o$,1ry(B) is a historical
 > character that was used in the Polish language around 16th century.  We
 > need it for publishing old-Polish texts.  As for names, \textlongs,
 > \textorogate, and \textOrogate are probably acceptable.

as Lars remarked, TS1 is a symbol encoding not a character glyph encoding. As
text characters require kerning and ligature possibilities as well as
preventing hyphenation of words if the gyphs come from different encodings in
a word adding such glyphs like the above to TS1 is not really a good idea.

Unfortunately we have T4 already taken up by the encoding made by by Joerg
Knappen which is a pity as T4 would be a natural name for a 256 char encoding
suitable for Polish texts. But even if that name is taken some other could be
decided upon. What is needed though is a well-defined encoding (preferably not
just for Polish but for  other historical languages as well ?) and it should
be done in a way that there is a chance to have more than a single font or two
that can be used in that encoding to avoid a situation like with T4 or to some
extend with TS1 (where most fonts that claim to support this encoding actually
can't do it properly, as they miss up to half of the glyphs - and that is a
shame as it forced us to introduce that rather strange concept of
sub-encodings instead of restrict ourselves to a more common subset that then
could be provided by many more fonts)


 > Regards,
 > Marcin