[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Groff] Some thoughts on glyphs

From: Alejandro López-Valencia
Subject: Re: [Groff] Some thoughts on glyphs
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:48:00 -0500

Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> The number of `.composite' calls is very limited (less than 10); the
> number of groff glyph names is fixed also (about 400).  All other
> glyph names will be derived algorithmically, so the problem you
> describe actually doesn't exist.

I take my hat off :)

> Again, this is a completely different problem.  The one and only
> encoding groff 2.0 will understand is UTF8 (besides latin1 and EBCDIC
> for backwards compatibility).  Everything else will be handled by the
> libiconv, Bruno Haible's excellent library for converting input
> encodings.

Ahhh! That makes things a lot easier.

I still think the ability to define a default encoding at runtime and/or
as a troff request would be a plus...

> I was only talking about glyph names, nothing else.  Please be
> careful and do a clear distinction between input characters and
> output glyphs.

I always do. Perhaps I didn't write it clear enough. ;)

> libiconv can handle *a lot* of input encodings :-)

Ahh yes, even several no one seems to use anymore :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]