Follow-up Comment #57, bug #63354 (group groff): [comment #56 comment #56:] > GNU _troff_ should, in my opinion, treat any spelling of > U+0082 as equivalent to \x82 in the input,
I theoretically agree with that. But the reality already doesn't match the
theory:
$ echo $'\x82' | groff -ww -z
troff:<standard input>:1: warning: invalid input character code 130
$ echo $'\x82' | groff -Kiso-8859-1 -ww -z
troff:<standard input>:1: warning: special character 'u0082' not defined
Thus a fallback defined for \[u0082] would work when preconv is used, whereas
groff itself will always reject C1 characters in straight 8-bit input.
Nonetheless, this is an academic question as long as bug #58958 prohibits the
fallback that \[u0082] would need.
> Okay. I assume you mean re: U+2052.
I meant re: all the above, and I intend to include a patch. I just wasn't
counting on a reply here in less than 20 minutes. :)
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63354>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
