Re: [Groff] Re: groff: radical re-implementation
At Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:45:51 +0200 (CEST),
Werner LEMBERG <email@example.com> 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)
UTF-8 stream like u+00a9 (character)
glyph expression like 'co' (glyph)
| troff (continuing)
UTF-8 stream like u+00a9 or '(C)' (character)
formatted text in any encoding (character)
Tomohiro KUBOTA <firstname.lastname@example.org>