Re: [Groff] Re: groff: radical re-implementation
> > This is not true. Encoding does *not* imply the character set.
> > You are talking about charset/encoding tags.
> Hmm, I cannot understand your idea...
> I intend to mean
> - character set: CCS (Coded Character Set) in RFC 2130
> - encoding: CES (Character Encoding Scheme) in RFC 2130
First of all: We both mean the same, and we agree how to handle the
problem in groff. I'm only arguing about technical terms.
Consider a PostScript font with its encoding vector. You have a
single glyph set which can map to multiple encodings. My intention is
to use the terms `set' and `encoding' in a consistent way -- I want to
avoid that we have to use other words if we are talking about glyphs
instead of characters.