Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 5 Mar 2006 00:22:57 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 11:26:28PM +0100, Heiko Oberdiek wrote:
> That means, the command tokens in LICR are limited to
> commands defined by the nfss2 \Declare... commands?
What is "\ "?
In the old 8bit encoding files, this is often used for
lonely accents, examples (latin2.def):
\DeclareInputText{178}{\k\ }
\DeclareInputText{184}{\c\ }
But the use is not constent, sometimes {} is used instead
(again latin2.def):
\DeclareInputText{162}{\u{}}
\DeclareInputText{180}{\@tabacckludge'{}}
...
One disadvantage of the "\ " method over "{}" can be seen
here:
\documentclass{minimal}
\begin{document}
[\k\ ] = [\k{}]
\end{document}
In the error recovery:
! LaTeX Error: Command \k unavailable in encoding OT1.
the argument of \k is not eaten, thus there is a space
between the square brackets in the first place.
utf8enc.dfu handles this much better by using \textascii...:
\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{00A8}{\textasciidieresis}
% vs. \"{}
\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{00AF}{\textasciimacron}
% vs. \@tabacckludge={}
\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{00B4}{\textasciiacute}
% vs. \@tabacckludge'{}
\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{02C6}{\textasciicircum}
% vs. \^{}
\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{02C7}{\textasciicaron}
% vs. \v{}
\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{02DC}{\textasciitilde}
% vs. \~{}
\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{02D8}{\textasciibreve}
% vs. \u{}
\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{02DD}{\textacutedbl}
% vs. \H{}
However:
\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{00B8}{\c\ }
Why is not \textasciicedilla used?
Yours sincerely
Heiko <[log in to unmask]>
|
|
|