Bug#119531: latex/3568: inclusion wish for latin10.def
On 26-08-2003, at 23h 54'32", Frank wrote to mugurel about "Re: latex/3568: inclusion wish for latin10.def"
> Hilmar,
>
> general comments:
>
> input encoding declarations should only refer (in the second argument) to
> LICRs (LaTeX Internal Character Representations), eg
>
> > \DeclareInputText{170}{\ooalign{S\crcr\hidewidth\raise-.31ex\hbox{\scriptsize,}\hidewidth}}
>
> is a nogo
That was the best I could do. I have no knowledge of TeX, only some
knowledge of LaTeX (as a user not as a developper).
> similarly \euro is wrong as it should be \texteuro which is the official LICR
> (the fact that some package uses different a name is irrelevant (just like the
> fact that i also prefer typing \euro to \texteuro :-)
I have no objection of that. I simply was not aware of the existence of
\texteuro.
>
> LICRs that are not provided by the kernel but by, say, textcomp, should be
> properly set up as
>
> \ProvideTextCommandDefault{\texteuro}
> {\TextSymbolUnavailable\texteuro}
>
> thus, \textdegree and perhaps others should be handled in this way
Fine with me.
>
> as for
>
> > \DeclareInputText{170}{\ooalign{S\crcr\hidewidth\raise-.31ex\hbox{\scriptsize,}\hidewidth}}
> > \DeclareInputText{186}{\ooalign{s\crcr\hidewidth\raise-.31ex\hbox{\scriptsize,}\hidewidth}}
> > \DeclareInputText{222}{\ooalign{T\crcr\hidewidth\raise-.31ex\hbox{\scriptsize,}\hidewidth}}
> > \DeclareInputText{254}{\ooalign{t\crcr\hidewidth\raise-.31ex\hbox{\scriptsize,}\hidewidth}}
>
> i would like to get to a decision what the LICR name should be, something like
> \C{T} is out of question for various reasons.
\C was just an example. You may even called \textcommabelow
>
> questions:
>
> - what are the unicode names? if any?
Well, the definition was included in the reference I gave:
http://bucovina.chem.tue.nl/romanian.utf8.htm
the 4 letters are U+0218 to U+021B.
Their name according to Unicode and the ISO8859-16 (Latin10) encoding
are:
<U0218> /xaa LATIN CAPITAL LETTER S WITH COMMA BELOW
<U0219> /xba LATIN SMALL LETTER S WITH COMMA BELOW
<U021A> /xde LATIN CAPITAL LETTER T WITH COMMA BELOW
<U021B> /xfe LATIN SMALL LETTER T WITH COMMA BELOW
the "COMMA BELOW" gliph is U+0326, just above the "CEDILLA" which is
U+0327.
> - are there similar chars with comman-under-accent?
Not that I am aware, but if we could trust Microsoft, I saw some other
gliphs with a comma below, like K, k, L, l, N, n, R, r, etc., all parts
of Latin Extended A. At Unicode I found with comma below: G is U+0122,
N is U+0145, K is U+0136, n is U+0146, R is U+0156, k is U+0137, r is
U+0157, L is U+0138, l is U+013C. The only problem is that they are
called with cedilla not with comma below, but if you look at it, there
is no cedilla under the letter. There are more letter with cedilla below
but there are called with cedilla and indeed there is a cedilla there.
>
> it might be that something like \textundercomma (or something equally
> horrible:-) might be the best but suggestions are welcome
\textcommabelow or \textcomma come to me mind now.
>
> whatever the final name the latin10.def should go
>
> \providecommand\textundercomma[1]{....}
>
> offering that accent withought compromising the general interface
>
> assuming i get such a file i'm happy to include it in the upcoming release
>
Thank you.
>
> ps what is meant by:
>
> %%
> %% Latin10 is also coming with support for the German double quotations.
> %% You have to use babel with a language that support those quotations,
> %% German and Romanian come now in my mind...
> %%
Latin10 (ISO8859-16) is the only 8 bits charset wich contain the German
double quotations. So you can insert those quotations by a single key
stroke, if you use \usepackage[latin10]{inputenc}. I was just trying to
show the advantages of using Latin10 charset.
>
> pps:
>
> > %% The comma below accent for S, s, T and t doesn't look good
> > %% for large characters. A solution would be to include internal
> > %% support for comma below in the same way like for the dot below,
> > %% so \C{t} to create the t comma below, etc.
>
> that might be possible after we have agreed on the LICR name, nevertheless a
> \providecommand is probably in order and it might be the best to start out in
> this way
Since S, s, T and t are all different, the relative position of the
comma below might differ. The solution I propose is not the best because
it depends of \relsize now.
See the new definitions:
\DeclareInputText{170}{\ooalign{S\crcr\hidewidth\raise-.31ex\hbox{\relsize{-2},}\hidewidth}}
\DeclareInputText{186}{\ooalign{s\crcr\hidewidth\raise-.31ex\hbox{\relsize{-2},}\hidewidth}}
\DeclareInputText{222}{\ooalign{T\crcr\hidewidth\raise-.31ex\hbox{\relsize{-2},}\hidewidth}}
\DeclareInputText{254}{\ooalign{t\crcr\hidewidth\raise-.31ex\hbox{\relsize{-2},}\hidewidth}}
Even so, is not perfect, because for tiny gliphs the comma is to large :-/
If somehow the U+0326 glyph would be accesible, it may be fixed this
way (in Unicode TeX or omega):
\ocp\test=inutf8
\ocplist\TestOCP=
\addbeforeocplist 1 \test
\nullocplist
\font\Testfont=omlgc
\def\begintest{\bgroup\pushocplist\TestOCP\Testfont}
\def\endtest{\popocplist\egroup}
\begintest
\par S\kern-.45emĚŚ
\par s\kern-.35emĚŚ
\par t\kern-.3emĚŚ
\par T\kern-.45emĚŚ
\char536, \char537, \char539, \char538, \char806;
\char350, \char351, \char355, \char354, ĚŚ.
abreve = Ä?, Abreve = Ä?,
tcedilla = ţ, Tcedilla = Ţ,
scedilla = Ĺ?, Scedilla = Ĺ?
circumflex = Ě?
dot under = ĚŁ
cedilla = ̧
comma below = ĚŚ
Č?, char 218 (Scommabelow) = Č?, char 219 (scommabelow) = Č?,
char 21A (Tcommabelow) = Č?, char 21B (tcommabelow) = Č?.
\endtest
\end
Best regards,
Ionel Ciob\^{i}c\u{a}
Reply to: