Bug#119531: tetex-base, new files: /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/base/latin9.def and /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/base/latin10.def
On 14.08.03 Ionel Mugurel Ciobica (tgakic@chem.tue.nl) wrote:
> On 24-06-2003, at 11h 57'17", Hilmar Preusse wrote to mugurel about "Re: tetex-base, new files: /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/base/latin9.def and /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/base/latin10.def"
Hi,
> > As you might have noticed, another latin9.def has been included into
> > teTeX from upstream. AFAICS it differs from your one. Before anybody
> > forwards your bug to upstream, could you please explain shortly the
> > purpose of latin10.def?
> >
>
> Sorry for my late answer. I just come back from my holidays few days
> ago...
>
Late response too. Anyway I'm happy that you respond: most of the
submitters of bugs of that age never respond.
> Latin10 or ISO8859-16 is an 8-bit charset (the ONLY one) which supports
> Romanian language [1].
>
> There are two letters (s and t with comma below) which are not in the
> LaTeX fonts, so those are "produced" in this latin10.def file. Of course
> that could be placed as well in a commabelow.sty file as well, but
> latin10.def is helpful for typing directly in Latin10 (and/or Latin2)
> and the output will be with comma below instead of cedilla.
>
> The s and t with comma below are also not supported by omega/lambda.
> The "comma below" glyph is present, but the S, T, s and t with comma
> below are absent. Using a regular comma (instead of the Unicode "comma
> below") will not produce the perfect solution, but this is as good it
> can get in this conditions.
>
Thanks for your elaboration! I've forwarded your wishlist bug to
upstream i.e. the LaTeX-Team. Now I'm waiting for response.
> A LaTeX input file using latin10.def must contain this:
>
> \usepackage{relsize}
> \usepackage{textcomp}
> \usepackage{eurosym}
> \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
> \usepackage[latin10]{inputenc}
>
Can \usepackage{eurosym} replaced by \usepackage{textcomp} if I call
the symbol \texteuro at the the place of char 164?
> Considering the latin9.def file I propose, I see no differences
> (except the ordering and the \mathonesuperior, \mathtwosuperior and
> \maththreesuperior), maybe the \euro instead of \texteuro? A simply
> \usepackage{eurosym} would solve the problem for my latin9.def
>
Well now there is an official version. That \math*superior is just a
redefinition of ^1, ^2 etc. \texteuro is the official symbol form the
LaTeX-Team so I propose to use that one.
> You may replace \euro with \texteuro in the latin10.def as well.
>
I've proposed that in my bug report.
Regards,
Hilmar
--
sigmentation fault
Reply to: