Re: [Groff] Using \U for unicode representation

[Werner LEMBERG]

> The \U escape seems to be unused.  So we could take it to represent
> unicode characters.

Yes, this is planned.

> It would make sense to define it as a function with a single
> argument, a hexadecimal unicode character code.  For example,
> "\U'03A4" will either map the argument to the corresponding
> character with code 03A4 or print the official unicode
> representation "U+03A4" if it is not available.

IMHO, these are two completely separated issues.  \U'03a4' will be the
Unicode input character U+03A4 (in a special Unicode-input mode which
does not yet exist).  It is *not* related to the output glyph (with a
completely different glyph index value) since that is font-dependent.

Of course, it may be a nice idea to write an add-on macro package
which maps non-existing glyphs to the text string `U+XXXX', or to
produce a small square or rectangle which could e.g. look like

   0 3
   A 4

> Moreover there should be a tmac file that defines \[U+xxxx] strings
> or character mappings for the existing groff special characters.

Yes, I plan to separate input encodings from output encodings.  For
example, the `charXXX' definitions should be removed from all font
description files to avoid a hard-coded input-output relationship.

For example, this was the reason to intodruce the `shc' glyph name
instead of `char173'.

> This would be a long-term project, not meant for 1.16.  If you think
> it makes sense, it should be set on the TODO list.

Good idea.  I'll do that.


    Werner