Re: [Fwd: Re: ec encoding and tcaron]

[Mojca Miklavec <mojca.miklavec.lists@gmail.com>]

Hans Hagen wrote:
> if you use regimes:
> 
> input encoding                  font encoding
> 
> <active char> => \namedglyph => 8bit char | fallback

OK, thanks. I didn't check if this works, but I hope the problem will
finally be solved now:

In enco-ec.tex change
    \definecharacter dmacron         158
into
    \definecharacter dstroke          158

and add
    \definecharacter Dstroke             208

% perhaps also something like
    \definecharacter dcroat         158
% but I think that you deal with synonyms at some place

Please also take a look at lang-hr.pat (or, better, please grep for
all occurencies of dbar and dmacron and see if you can get rid of as
many of them as possible).

Did I miss any other files?

Another remark. I'm not sure which name is better, dstroke
(unicode-based) or dcroat (adobe-based). ConTeXt seems to have a
strange mixture of unicode- and adobe- based names. "hungarumlaut" is
adobe-based, while "diaeresis" is unicode-based for example. I don't
want to introduce just another name, incompatible with any standards.


This additional patch below is the wrong way of doing things. It gives
wrong result in the sense that the copy-paste will result in wrong
character codes (and that a Croat won't notice that he's using the
wrong encoding, just as I didn't notice anything weird in ccaron for a
long time), but the resulting glyphs in PDF will be better and in the
printed material this won't be seen, which is the most important part.
If you use fallback, the results are worse in both senses anyway (the
document is not any more searchable).

So, can you please also add
    \definecharacter Dstroke             208
to enco-qx.tex and enco-ans.tex? And add also a comment that the
glyphs are identical, but the charecters differ, just in case anyone
wonders a couple of years later what these dstrokes are doing there.

Thank you,
    Mojca

PS:
So, let me count: dstroke, dmacron, dbar, dcroat, [wrong] eth, ... any
other suggestions for standardisation ;) ?