Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:48:21 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0JLmI6C029880 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:48:19 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h0JLX1AL029155; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:33:01 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2C004.7BD8C080" Received: from listserv (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h0J500qP028454; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:24:47 +0100 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 6722 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:24:46 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h0JLOkkr031926 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:24:46 +0100 Received: from mailgate.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (exim@mailgate.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.64.97]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h0JLVnZr024835 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:31:49 +0100 (MET) Received: from g113.hadiko.de (root@hadig113.hadiko.uni-karlsruhe.de [172.20.43.13]) by mailgate.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 18aN2i-0002KF-00; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:31:48 +0100 Received: (from nil@localhost) by g113.hadiko.de (8.11.1/8.11.1/Debian 8.11.0-6) id h0JLUXG04545 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:30:33 +0100 In-Reply-To: <15912.35366.899220.996696@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> References: <200212031601.gB3G11cQ009558@sun.dante.de> <15899.14827.804209.458595@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <20030116114637.GA9844@g113.hadiko.de> <15912.23044.419984.897093@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <20030117223345.GA14828@g113.hadiko.de> <15912.35366.899220.996696@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jan 2003 21:48:21.0164 (UTC) FILETIME=[7BF1C6C0:01C2C004] User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -3 () IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_02_03,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MUTT Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: latex/3480: Support for UTF-8 missing in inputenc.sty Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:30:33 +0100 Message-ID: A<20030119213033.GA2550@g113.hadiko.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: latex/3480: Support for UTF-8 missing in inputenc.sty Thread-Index: AcLABHwWUPUkfJ0nSjKmIRFzPHhLuA== From: "Dominique Unruh" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4437 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C004.7BD8C080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > sorry, misunderstanding, i meant quite literally the semantics of the > arguments for your \DeclareUnicodecharacter macro, ie what goes into > #1 ... Ah. \DeclareUnicodeCharacter{}{} where is a TeX number (it is normalised by using \number#1), and is some TeX code (like \texthallo). > question is how both could coexist and if they can whether they can = use the > same database of \DeclareUnicodecharacter declarations rather than = doubling > the space My package uses features like combining characters and options, and therefore has to reflect these in the database (the database does not use \DeclareUnicodeCharacter, which is only an abbreviation). Further the files are ordered by code position uni-.def, and not by fontencoding, since they are loaded on demand. But now that I think of it, it would make sense to allow third party packages to add mappings without having to detect, which package is loaded. This would be possible by adapting the syntax of your \DeclareUnicodeCharacter to mine (should'nt be too hard, exactly one byte has to be changed in \DeclareUnicodeCharacter), and then not simply \def'ing it, but using % pseudo-code \ifx\DeclareUnicodeCharacter\undefined\let\DeclareUnicodeCharacter\empty\= fi \g@addtomacro\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{the code} in both utf8.def's. This would make \DeclareUnicodeCharacter declare for both packages. > > > > \DeclareUnicodeCommand (analogous to \DeclareTextCommand) > > \DeclareUnicodeMapping % the LaTeX may be guessed > > \DeclareUnicodeInput % like in inputenc > > \DeclareUnicodeInputText % like in inputenc If we take up the above proposal, then we don't have to worry about that any more. DniQ. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C004.7BD8C080 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: latex/3480: Support for UTF-8 missing in = inputenc.sty

> sorry, misunderstanding, i meant quite literally = the semantics of the
> arguments for your \DeclareUnicodecharacter = macro, ie what goes into
> #1 ...

Ah.

\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{<num>}{<code>}

where <num> is a TeX number (it is normalised by = using \number#1), and
<code> is some TeX code (like = \texthallo).

> question is how both could coexist and if they = can whether they can use the
> same database of  \DeclareUnicodecharacter = declarations rather than doubling
> the space

My package uses features like combining characters and = options, and
therefore has to reflect these in the database (the = database does not
use \DeclareUnicodeCharacter, which is only an = abbreviation).

Further the files are ordered by code position = uni-<num/256>.def, and
not by fontencoding, since they are loaded on = demand.

But now that I think of it, it would make sense to = allow third party
packages to add mappings without having to detect, = which package is
loaded. This would be possible by adapting the syntax = of your
\DeclareUnicodeCharacter to mine (should'nt be too = hard, exactly one
byte has to be changed in \DeclareUnicodeCharacter), = and then not
simply \def'ing it, but using

% pseudo-code
\ifx\DeclareUnicodeCharacter\undefined\let\DeclareUnicodeCharact= er\empty\fi
\g@addtomacro\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{the = code}

in both utf8.def's. This would make = \DeclareUnicodeCharacter declare
for both packages.


>  > >  > \DeclareUnicodeCommand = (analogous to \DeclareTextCommand)
>  > \DeclareUnicodeMapping % the LaTeX = may be guessed
>  > \DeclareUnicodeInput % like in = inputenc
>  > \DeclareUnicodeInputText % like in = inputenc

If we take up the above proposal, then we don't have = to worry about
that any more.

DniQ.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C004.7BD8C080--