[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Groff] Re: groff: radical re-implementation


At Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:45:51 +0200 (CEST),
Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> wrote:

> 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.
> Another try.
> 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.

I understand I am confused.  I have to confirm a few points:

1. Your 'charset' and 'encoding' are for troff or for preprocessor?
   I thought both of them are for preprocessor.  The preprocessor
   figures out the way to convert the input to UTF-8 from the information.
2. Which will the pre/postprocessors handle, characters or glyphs?
   Or, is it meaningless to distinguish the object for pre/post-
   processors is character or glyph? (since they handle concrete
   encodings such as Latin-1 and UTF-8.  If the implementation 
   is not affected, it will be meaningless to think about whether
   the Latin-1, UTF-8, and so on are codes for character or glyph.)
3. Your 'charset' is for glyph and 'encoding' is for character?
   I thought both of them are for character, since I thought both 
   of them are for preprocessor.
4. I though we were discussing on (tags in roff souce for) preprocessor.
   Is that right?

Is this chart right (for tty)?

   roff source in any encoding like '\(co'     (character)
          |  preprocessor
   UTF-8 stream like u+00a9                    (character)
          |  troff
   glyph expression like 'co'                  (glyph)
          |  troff (continuing)
   UTF-8 stream like u+00a9 or '(C)'           (character)
          |  postprocessor
   formatted text in any encoding              (character)

Tomohiro KUBOTA <kubota@debian.org>

Reply to: