groff archive search

1. Re: [Groff] unicode support - questions (score: 3)

Author: HIDDEN

Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 13:35:55 +0100 (CET)

I've just reread the mail w.r.t. glyph classes, and I think the following simplified version will do. classes Alike = A :A 'A `A ... ; CJKpunct = u3000-u303F; Hiragana = u3040-u309F; ... CJK = @CJKpu

/archive/html/groff/2006-03/msg00051.html (4,364 bytes)

2. Re: [Groff] unicode support - questions (score: 3)

Author: HIDDEN

Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:05:04 +0100 (CET)

[Please read section `gtroff' internals for more information too.] There are different levels. . The first level is input characters -- a future groff version shall expect UTF-8 which is stored inte

/archive/html/groff/2006-01/msg00123.html (8,716 bytes)

3. Re: [Groff] Character class support patch (score: 2)

Author: HIDDEN

Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:00:13 +0100 (CET)

The range mechanism must rely not on glyph names (or indices), but on Unicode values. This is, all (predefined) groff entities must be mapped to the equivalent Unicode value(s) as given in file glyp

/archive/html/groff/2008-01/msg00016.html (8,187 bytes)

4. Re: [Groff] Character class support patch (score: 2)

Author: HIDDEN

Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:38:37 +0100 (CET)

Ah, my mistake. It should be rather EquivIdentifier A - Z - a - z ; (note the space before the final `;') -- can you suggest a better solution for multi-line entries? Thanks. Please let me first hav

/archive/html/groff/2008-01/msg00010.html (6,441 bytes)

5. Re: [Groff] Character class support patch (score: 2)

Author: HIDDEN

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 23:20:30 +0000

A first remark without looking at the details of the patch (which looks very clean, BTW): Thank you. What do you think of this syntax which reduces redundant syntactical sugar: classes ClassName A B

/archive/html/groff/2008-01/msg00009.html (7,508 bytes)

6. Re: [Groff] Character class support patch (score: 2)

Author: HIDDEN

Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:44:20 +0100 (CET)

A first remark without looking at the details of the patch (which looks very clean, BTW): What do you think of this syntax which reduces redundant syntactical sugar: classes ClassName A B C D E; Equi

/archive/html/groff/2008-01/msg00006.html (6,276 bytes)

7. Re: [Groff] unicode support - questions (score: 2)

Author: HIDDEN

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:51:39 +0100 (CET)

Interesting. Maybe we can reuse some code for quicker coding. I'm open to suggestions how the syntax should look like. Note that a glyph name within groff is almost arbitrary; to mark classes as suc

/archive/html/groff/2006-01/msg00137.html (6,425 bytes)

8. Re: [Groff] unicode support - questions (score: 2)

Author: HIDDEN

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:47:15 +0100

Hello Werner, Thanks for all the answers. I see. I had imagined the same thing with just the properties and no classes, like the POSIX locale files. The classes make it easier to write small font fil

/archive/html/groff/2006-01/msg00135.html (6,653 bytes)