[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 :)