Adam Lindsay wrote:
Sure. (didn't send to main list 'cos it's rough, still) I notice in the context of this latest discussion that I use Eth as a stand-in for Dcroat, mostly because I know slightly more about Icelandic than I do about Croatian. Although these slots are precious, perhaps I shouldn't do that.
There are extremely few encodings (if any) which do use Dcroat (they don't have any strong TeX user group such as the Polish or the Czech one to rule the world). The two glyphs are the same, but the drawbacks are: - the hyphenation with Dcroat doesn't work - you perhaps cannot properly lowercase/uppercase words - copy/search in the resulting documents will be wrong Well, you probably know it better if it would hurt you to have Dcroat instead of Eth. If slots are expensive enough, you can still make some language-specific hacks (redefine the lccode of Eth to point to dcroat, fool the Acrobat about the unicode value of Eth ...). It would be nice to have Dcroat (it would be one of extremely rare encodings with proper support for South Slavic languages), but well -- NOT for every price. Esperanto needs some more glyphs (5 or 6 times two), but I think that there are too many and that the language is to rarely used to sacrifice the slots. I skimmed the list on the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabets_derived_from_the_Latin). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-breve Do you consider ubreve important enough to be added? It is used by Esperanto (which cannot be typeset with this set of characters anyway), in latin transcript of Belarusian (perhaps a good, but almost surely the only reason), in Unicode reference it is also stated that it is used for Latin, but I didn't find any other reference for it. We also use it in phonetics, but that's just another bad argument (on one hand it can be composed and on the other it doesn't make much difference if there are only 9 instead of 10 glyphs missing). Thanks for the encoding, Adam, it's great idea to mix two encodings together to get as magnificent results as possible! I hope it will be ready soon to be used in ConTeXt ;) Will afterwards another complementary encoding be made with as many "non-letter" glyphs as possible to be used together with this one? Mojca