Re: [Groff] Re: groff: radical re-implementation
> However, thank you for explaining glyph. I also understand you
> understand problems on Japanese character codes well.
Well, I'm the author of the CJK package for LaTeX, I've written a
ttf2pk converter, and I'm a member of the FreeType core team :-)
> Note that CJK ideographs also has distinction between character and
> glyph. The most famous example is two variants of a 'tall or high'
> character. Japanese people regard these two as the same in daily
> use but Japanese people regard these two as different if they are
> used in person's names or so on.
I know these problems too well -- AFAIK, in JIS X 0208 these two
variants are unified. Do you know details about the new JIS X 0213
> I don't know how Chinese and Korean people treat them. It may be
> different. However, IMHO, we should neglect this problem now since
> there are so far no standard to treat these variants properly.
> Though it is important, it is not in our scope.
If you are working on a terminal you need a character set which
distinguishes the two forms.
> > A `glyph code' is just an arbitrary registration number for a glyph
> > specified in the font definition file.
> Then the 'font definition file' will be irrationally large. I think
> at least CJK ideographics and Korean precompiled Hanguls have to be
> treated in different way. (Ukai has already pointed this problem.
> jgroff uses 'wchar<EUCcode>' for glyph names of Japanese
Right. I think I've answered this problem in my last mail (regarding
a `glyphclass' directive in font description files).
> A problem. When compiled within internationalized OS, the names for
> encodings (for iconv(3) and so on) is implementation-dependent (You
> know, there are many implementation-dependent items in standard
> C/C++ language). A solution is: we can have a hard-coded
> translation table between implementation-dependent encoding names
> and macro names for -m. The table must be changed by OS (by
> './configure' script or so). A minimal table will be translate
> every implementation-dependent encoding names into 'ascii' macro,
> since almost encodings in the world are superset of ASCII. A full
> table for a OS will cover the list generated by 'iconv --list'.
I don't think so. For example, we could restrict to MIME character
set tags which are standardized.
> Since the '-m' option is generated by groff and passed to troff,
> groff has to have '#ifdef I18N' code. (or, the code can be
> integrated to the preprocessor if we design the preprocessor to
> invoke troff.)
Indeed, the default behaviour should be that the preprocessor adds a
line or something similar to the document, but there must be a
possibility to override it manually.