> At 22.20 +0100 2001-02-11, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> >should it perhaps be LY1 suitably renamed (or something similar)?
> No. Unless you can provide a good argument for why letters and the kind of
> symbols which currently reside in TS1 have to appear in the same font there
> is no reason for switching to LY1 or something similar to that.
sorry, I should not have mentioned an explicit encoding (and didn't even know
what is in LY1). you are quite right, there is no need to have symbols that do
not take part in kerning
> It is another matter though that T1 cannot cover all the European languages
> with latin scripts (as I suspect was originally the intention), so for e.g.
> Romanian and other languages that need comma accents one would need another
> encoding (say T1A). Until someone sits down and creates that however, could
> there perhaps be a slot in TS1 assigned to the comma accent (like it
> currently is for the \t accent)? It wouldn't be sufficient for hyphenation,
> but it would at least make it possible to use the accent in general texts.
> (My interest in the matter is that it would be nice to have that put into
> ts1.etx before the final fontinst v1.9 is released.)
I think that the use of texual glyphs in the TS encodings is actually wrong
for the very same reason that you pointed out that encodings like LY1 need not
have all the symbols. as long as we only have T1 and TS1 that might be
approrpiate, but better would be to have a text encoding covering other
languages not covered by T1.