Mail-Followup-To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
References: <20060304161541.GA23818@irwin.vpn.uni-freiburg.de>
            <D65EA020-ABC3-11DA-B480-0003930D5AB6@residenset.net>
            <20060304222628.GA28832@irwin.vpn.uni-freiburg.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID:  <20060304232256.GA29731@irwin.vpn.uni-freiburg.de>
Date:         Sun, 5 Mar 2006 00:22:57 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Heiko Oberdiek <oberdiek@UNI-FREIBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: LICR objects
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <20060304222628.GA28832@irwin.vpn.uni-freiburg.de>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 11:26:28PM +0100, Heiko Oberdiek wrote:

> That means, the command tokens in LICR are limited to
> commands defined by the nfss2 \Declare... commands?

What is "\ "?
In the old 8bit encoding files, this is often used for
lonely accents, examples (latin2.def):
  \DeclareInputText{178}{\k\ }
  \DeclareInputText{184}{\c\ }
But the use is not constent, sometimes {} is used instead
(again latin2.def):
  \DeclareInputText{162}{\u{}}
  \DeclareInputText{180}{\@tabacckludge'{}}
  ...

One disadvantage of the "\ " method over "{}" can be seen
here:
  \documentclass{minimal}
  \begin{document}
    [\k\ ] = [\k{}]
  \end{document}

In the error recovery:
  ! LaTeX Error: Command \k unavailable in encoding OT1.
the argument of \k is not eaten, thus there is a space
between the square brackets in the first place.

utf8enc.dfu handles this much better by using \textascii...:
  \DeclareUnicodeCharacter{00A8}{\textasciidieresis}
  % vs. \"{}
  \DeclareUnicodeCharacter{00AF}{\textasciimacron}
  % vs. \@tabacckludge={}
  \DeclareUnicodeCharacter{00B4}{\textasciiacute}
  % vs. \@tabacckludge'{}
  \DeclareUnicodeCharacter{02C6}{\textasciicircum}
  % vs. \^{}
  \DeclareUnicodeCharacter{02C7}{\textasciicaron}
  % vs. \v{}
  \DeclareUnicodeCharacter{02DC}{\textasciitilde}
  % vs. \~{}
  \DeclareUnicodeCharacter{02D8}{\textasciibreve}
  % vs. \u{}
  \DeclareUnicodeCharacter{02DD}{\textacutedbl}
  % vs. \H{}

However:
  \DeclareUnicodeCharacter{00B8}{\c\ }
Why is not \textasciicedilla used?

Yours sincerely
  Heiko <oberdiek@uni-freiburg.de>