User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20091028141650.GA3488@irwin.vpn.uni-freiburg.de>           
            <19176.37836.964673.628156@morse.mittelbach-online.de>           
            <20091028231433.GA4001@irwin.uni-mannheim.de>           
            <19177.18303.198573.261636@morse.mittelbach-online.de>           
            <20091029135720.GA4353@irwin.vpn.uni-freiburg.de>
            <1256826411.3494.226.camel@britten>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <4AE9C190.50106@residenset.net>
Date:         Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:23:44 +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: =?UTF-8?B?TGFycyBIZWxsc3Ryw7Zt?= <Lars.Hellstrom@RESIDENSET.NET>
Subject: Re: Encoding subset for lm* and tg*
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <1256826411.3494.226.camel@britten>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Marcin Woliński skrev:
> Dnia 2009-10-29, czw o godzinie 14:57 +0100, Heiko Oberdiek pisze:
>> Additionally the lm and tg fonts provide glyphs at
>>   * slot 81/121o/51h  (/Orogate)
>>   * slot 113/161o/71h (/orogate)
>>   * slot 115/163o/73h (/longs, U+017F)
> 
> That's true and we would be more than happy if these could be officially
> introduced into TS1.  ‘Long s’ is probably something that needs no
> explanations.  ‘O rogate’ (Polish for ‘horned o’) is a historical
> character that was used in the Polish language around 16th century.  We
> need it for publishing old-Polish texts. 

TS1 is probably not the right place for these, as they seem to be 
letters; it is sometimes desirable to have ligatures producing the long 
s, and I suppose you'd want hyphenation also for words involving the 
horned o. To use them cleanly, you should design an encoding that you 
would use instead of T1. Given the Polish connection, an idea could be 
to extend OT4 (though reusing that exact name is not necessarily a good 
idea).

fntguide.tex says what's involved on the LaTeX side. 
http://mirror.ctan.org/fonts/utilities/fontinst/doc/encspecs/encspecs.tex 
goes through the issues involved in designing an encoding.

> As for names, \textlongs,
> \textorogate, and \textOrogate are probably acceptable.

The LICR commands are of course independent of the exact encoding 
providing the character. Could \k{o} work for \textorogate, though? (I 
mean as a way of encoding it, not necessarily as a way of producing a 
reasonable glyph, since the default behaviour of \k can be overridden 
using composites.)

Lars Hellström