Frank >Lars > > > Also, perhaps I should point out that what Frank called glyph collection > > seems to be pretty much what I call encoding in relenc.tex, and what he > > called encoding seems to be pretty much what I call coding scheme in > > relenc.tex. > >yes indeed. do you agree that our names are better? > No I do not; my intention with that paragraph was simply to give other people some first aid in sorting out things. >point is what we call "glyph collection" and you "encoding" is a set ie >something unordered (a collection) which is why i think calling it encoding is >confusing the issues as in my book encoding means associate a mapping with a >set. right? Firstly, the reason I started calling it encoding is that when I started to write relenc (that was almost two years ago), I thought about it as a package for use under LaTeX2e. In LaTeX2e, that NFSS axis is called encoding; it's that simple. Secondly, I do think about encoding as being a mapping---a mapping from some set containing letter tokens, "other" tokens, some LaTeX commands, and certain patterns of such to "typeset output" (a vague term, I know, but I think you get the idea). I suppose your glyph collections are the ranges of my encodings, but I do not think that glyph collections are the objects that one should choose with NFSS3. It does matter how things get mapped---you cannot simply be content with that there is something which gets mapped to what you want, you must also know what this something is. >example: the glyphs in a ps font (ie those in the AFM file some of which are >compositive) form a collection (you call it encoding) and the encoding vector As used here, I do not. -------->~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /LH >defines an encoding (ie the subset + its mapping to numbers) that can be >actually used (you call it coding scheme) Thirdly, the encoding mapping has a natural decomposition in two parts, namely what is done in TeX and what is done after TeX. I use the term coding scheme to describe the combination of all mapping that is done after TeX. Your description seems a bit odd---the coding scheme maps numbers to glyphs, not the other way round. Lars Hellström