(forwarded to Ross Moore in case he's not on this list) On 06/09/2008, at 4:05 PM, Heiko Oberdiek wrote: > what's the unicode code point for \b as accent? > > U+0331 COMBINING MACRON BELOW/NON-SPACING MACRON BELOW > + opposite of \= (U+0304 COMBINING MACRON/NON-SPACING MACRON) > - Unicode doesn't have a letter with this accent > > +U0332 COMBINING LOW LINE/NON-SPACING UNDERSCORE > + practical use for underlining (e.g. in bookmarks) > - it isn't a typical accent > > +U0320 COMBINING MINUS SIGN BELOW/NON-SPACING MINUS SIGN BELOW > - I don't see use cases, especially, there isn't a `plus sign below'. > > My guess would be `macron below', \b seems to be inherited > from math mode. I don't know heaps about this sort of stuff. Here're a few representative lines from Ross Moore's xunicode: \DeclareEncodedCompositeCharacter{\UTFencname}{\b}{0332}{005F} % Combining low line \DeclareUTFcomposite[\UTFencname]{x1E06}{\b}{B} \DeclareUTFcomposite[\UTFencname]{x1E07}{\b}{b} \DeclareUTFcomposite[\UTFencname]{x1E0E}{\b}{D} \DeclareUTFcomposite[\UTFencname]{x1E0F}{\b}{d} \DeclareUTFcomposite[\UTFencname]{x1E34}{\b}{K} \DeclareUTFcomposite[\UTFencname]{x1E35}{\b}{k} \DeclareUTFcomposite[\UTFencname]{x1E3A}{\b}{L} \DeclareUTFcomposite[\UTFencname]{x1E3B}{\b}{l} \DeclareUTFcomposite[\UTFencname]{x1E48}{\b}{N} \DeclareUTFcomposite[\UTFencname]{x1E49}{\b}{n} \DeclareUTFcomposite[\UTFencname]{x1E5E}{\b}{R} \DeclareUTFcomposite[\UTFencname]{x1E5F}{\b}{r} \DeclareUTFcomposite[\UTFencname]{x1E6E}{\b}{T} \DeclareUTFcomposite[\UTFencname]{x1E6F}{\b}{t} \DeclareUTFcomposite[\UTFencname]{x1E94}{\b}{Z} \DeclareUTFcomposite[\UTFencname]{x1E95}{\b}{z} \DeclareUTFcomposite[\UTFencname]{x1E96}{\b}{h} However, if I look up the decomposition for these composite characters (using the Mac OS X application UnicodeChecker), they all use the U +0331 glyph. E.g., U+1E0F -> 0064 0331 *** So xunicode uses u+0332 for \b, even for glyphs that should be combined with u+0331. I suspect this is a bug... Back to your original question, Heiko, I'd agree with your intuition that u+0331 would be the right glyph to use. Will