LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Roozbeh Pournader <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:00:57 +0330
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
TEXT/PLAIN (44 lines)
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Frank Mittelbach wrote:

>  > Adobe has assigned dotlessj to U+F6BE (LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS J), but
>  > that is inofficial (and thus not universal) as it resides in the private
>  > use area.
> what we try is to provide a utf8 input encoding, how likely is it that some
> editor or application generates that Adobe thing? not very i would guess (at
> least not now) therefore i would not assign anything.

Something that may happen:

1. A TeX document is typeset with a PS Type 1 font will have the dotlessj
somewhere. After being converted to PDF, you will have the glyph in a PDF
document. Adobe tools see a 'dotlessj' there.

2. Someone copies and pastes it from Acrobat Reader into a document using
an editor that supports Adobe private use characters. He sees a dotlessj

3. The output is fed back into LaTeX.

> that would be wrong in my opinion. the internal LaTeX form
> \textasteriskcentered is clearly a text character and U+2217 is a math
> symbol. so if some application is requesting U+2217 it should get a * in
> math mode that is (probably, haven't checked the unicode page) a
> relation or a binary operator.

Unicode doesn't distinguish that much between text and math characters. It
says somewhere that you may use a math character as a bullet or something.
I guess the best way to implement this is if you saw the character in text
mode it is \textasteriskcentered and if you saw it in math mode it is '*'.

Anyway, what is the usage of \textasteriskcentered? I may be able to
follow it up with Unicode guys and see if we need a character for that.

> whether that is worth doing, I don't know. I guess as part of the exercise we
> should perhaps build an extended list of all mapping from unicode to known
> (abd used) encoding-specific commands.

I'm in.