Edward Cherlin wrote:
> But does that mean that national standards bodies can continue to jerk us
> around as the KSC people did? I think we have to say at some point that
> Unicode will not offer round-trip conversions for all future character set
> standards, no matter how badly designed [...].
Unicode 3.0 is either that point, or very nearly so. There may still
be a few obscure-but-standardized character sets hiding somewhere
for Michael Everson and friends to exhume and embed in Unicode.
> It seems that some more education is required [...].
The motto of i18n: the problem is always harder than you think,
even when you have taken this motto into account. :-)
> BTW, I'm sure I've seen a dotless j in a math font (TeX?). Are there any in
> text fonts?
TeX Computer Modern contains dotless j in both math and text fonts, as
is natural, because the content of a font is glyphs.
I have some approximate mapping tables for various CM fonts,
in Unicode Consortium format; they can only be approximate
because, e.g., TeX uses the same glyph code (0x41) for "A" and "Alpha".
The tables use five non-Unicode entries altogether:
variant Greek epsilon, dotless j, non-directional single quote,
and hooks for left and right arrows.
Anyone with a natural home for these tables, BTW?
-- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! / Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau / Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge / Politzer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:48 EDT