LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
From: Lars Hellström <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 18:25:20 +0200
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (30 lines)
At 17.34 +0200 2001-05-14, jbezos wrote:
>No, no. A font can contain glyphs variants so that
>the user can select that he wants (for example,
>Greek lunate sigma and medial beta are included in
>several fonts, as well as simplied and traditional
>Chinese ideograms). They are completely different
>glyphs, even if they represent the same char; note
>that many of them are included in Unicode only for
>compatibility and their use is discouraged.

For the base fonts I agree this makes sense, but for top level fonts (i.e.,
the ones which TeX/Omega actually works with) it is mainly a nuisance. It
also goes against much of the philosophy in LaTeX as you end up with for
each character separately specifying what it should look like rather than
what it logically is.

>> You have to encode the hyphenation patterns somehow. As Unicode will cover
>> all known scripts it can be used as a universal encoding. Furthermore I
>> thought that there were OCPs (acting approximately at \shipout time) that
>> converted from Unicode to the actual font encodings when they are not the
>> same. Is this not correct?
>
>But even so, the encoding used when hyphenating
>is _always_ the font encoding.

Now I don't understand. Are you saying that there is an OCP, but that it
never changes anything?

Lars Hellström

ATOM RSS1 RSS2