Received: from webgate.proteosys.de (mail.proteosys-ag.com [62.225.9.49]) by lucy.proteosys (8.11.0/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id f16BgIH05915 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:42:18 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f16BgHd04501 . for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:42:17 +0100 Received: from mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailserver1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.30]) by mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f16BgHM15145 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:42:17 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C09031.DBB14900" Received: from mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.57]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21745 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:42:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (mail.listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.5]) by mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f16BgG722449 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:42:16 +0100 (MET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by mail.listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.B00C61E3@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:42:11 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 488108 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:42:12 +0100 Received: from ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (mail.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.234]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA00836 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:41:58 +0100 (MET) Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA77058 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:41:58 +0100 Received: from moutvdom00.kundenserver.de (moutvdom00.kundenserver.de [195.20.224.149]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f16Bfwu06474 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:41:58 +0100 (MET) Received: from [195.20.224.204] (helo=mrvdom00.kundenserver.de) by moutvdom00.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14Q6VR-0000Kc-00 for LATEX-L@urz.uni-heidelberg.de; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:41:57 +0100 Received: from dialin337.zdv.uni-mainz.de ([134.93.175.37] helo=istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de) by mrvdom00.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14Q6V2-0000Op-00 for LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:41:33 +0100 Received: (from latex3@localhost) by istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id MAA20676; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:34:47 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under Emacs 20.4.1 X-Authentication-Warning: istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de: latex3 set sender to frank@mittelbach-online.de using -f Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: glyph collections viz font encodings Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:34:47 +0100 Message-ID: <14975.57687.924527.572758@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Frank Mittelbach" Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" To: "Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L" Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3715 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09031.DBB14900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Javier, you wrote: > > do you have any other issues than the two above? you mentioned them = as > "for > > example". > > There are in part related to the fact that a language or a script > can provide a set of default encogings. (Note: in the current draft > for Lambda there are files for both languages and scripts). > But I think that: > > > also please note that my code (after your fix:-) does both: you can = still > > specify a single encoding and then only that encoding will get used = ie you > get > > the situation as it is now where the user has total control = (assuming that > fd > > files are the same). > > is the best solution. i don't; yet (see that it is the best solution) and i would be glad if = you try to explain anything that is potentially a problem if one thinks about languages and scripts. yes i know that you differenciates between language and script and i'm currently musing over it :-) cheers frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09031.DBB14900 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: glyph collections viz font encodings

Javier,

you wrote:

 > > do you have any other issues than the = two above? you mentioned them as
 > "for
 > > example".
 >
 > There are in part related to the fact that = a language or a script
 > can provide a set of default encogings. = (Note: in the current draft
 > for Lambda there are files for both = languages and scripts).
 > But I think that:
 >
 > > also please note that my code (after = your fix:-) does both: you can still
 > > specify a single encoding and then = only that encoding will get used ie you
 > get
 > > the situation as it is now where the = user has total control (assuming that
 > fd
 > > files are the same).
 >
 > is the best solution.

i don't; yet (see that it is the best solution) and i = would be glad if you try
to explain anything that is potentially a problem if = one thinks about
languages and scripts.

yes i know that you differenciates between language = and script and i'm
currently musing over it :-)

cheers
frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C09031.DBB14900--