Mojca Miklavec wrote: > On 2/5/06, Adam Lindsay wrote: >> Hans Hagen wrote: >>> Mojca Miklavec wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> The fact that all Polish fonts (lm, iwona, kurier, antt) now ship with >>>> el-* files makes me wonder: is there time to do the next step and >>>> finish the second encoding with symbols? >>>> >>>> >>> indeed >> Oop. Sorry, I hadn't been watching that. >> I've suggested texnansi as a starting point, at least within ConTeXt. >> What symbols do people want that *aren't* within texnansi? > > 1. Would Caron & similar uppercase accents make sense? I doubt that > many accents are needed in addition to what is already present in the > other encoding anyway, but something like that could be used if there > is no Ccaron present in the font for example: > > \definecharacter Ccaron {\buildtextaccent\textCaron C} > instead of > \definecharacter Ccaron {\buildtextaccent\textcaron C} > > In well-designed fonts (including all Polish fonts such as lm, > antykwa, iwona, ...) the lowercase and the uppercase variant of the > accent differ. (Try to write \Scaron\Ccaron in texnansi encoding for > example to see the difference).
Good point... except that there are *no* accents available in eurolett, anyway. It *should* have all of the accented uppercase characters you need (within roman ;). The whole theory is to do away with building text accents. But what does Hans want? Should lc and uc accents be available to create `weird' combinations? > Of course some care has to be taken, so that it will also work for > fonts without those additional accents for uppercase characters (using > \iffontchar perhaps?). Indeed. I do want to avoid a strong dependency on the specific glyphs that appear in the font. That moves the encoding mess to *within* ConTeXt, which is not pretty, either. > 2. perhaps some currency symbols missing in texnansi > I would suggest to add Euro, but with some special care of course. > Perhaps some users still prefer to use the regular (geometrical) > symbol rather than the one taken from I-forgot-which-font (the default > behaviour when \texteuro is used). > > Any other currency on this list worth supporting? > http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U20A0.pdf > Perhaps dong, lira, Won ... sounds like ts1-like stuff. > 3. Perhaps a short glimpse into: > http://source.contextgarden.net/ts1-lm.enc > http://www.cstug.cz/aktivity/2005/lm-at11e.pdf > http://www.janusz.nowacki.strefa.pl/pliki/AntykwaTorunska-doc-en-2_03.pdf > if you notice anything worth supporting. > > "married" might be useful for geneaology, I guess that the leaf is > there for the same purpose. No idea why anyone would want to use the > musical note (ugly in lm and probably hardly present in any other > font). They're there because of ts1, which is *mostly* unhelpful here. I would have thought glyph coverage from places like Adobe, Storm, and Emigre (for example) might be a better guide. > 4. numero sign, ordfeminine, ordmasculine, copyleft ;), I don't know well, some of those are in standard practice, at least. ;) > if anybody needs fractions, permyriad, ... one/two/...superior > (present in some regimes) are pretty pointless in TeX where you can > use \high{} I guess. Perhaps there should be two different glyphs for > "tilde" and "asciitilde" (not sure about the last one.) Yeah, I'm trying to be driven by *requirements* instead of "technical capability" (i.e., what already exists in a family of fairly peculiar fonts). I know those are around, but I don't hear a lot of calls for them since ConTeXt moved to EC as a default encoding. adam -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Adam T. Lindsay, Computing Dept. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lancaster University, InfoLab21 +44(0)1524/510.514 Lancaster, LA1 4WA, UK Fax:+44(0)1524/510.492 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- _______________________________________________ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context