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