Hans Hagen wrote:
Mojca Miklavec wrote:
Another remark. I'm not sure which name is better, dstroke (unicode-based) or dcroat (adobe-based). ConTeXt seems to have a strange mixture of unicode- and adobe- based names. "hungarumlaut" is adobe-based, while "diaeresis" is unicode-based for example. I don't want to introduce just another name, incompatible with any standards.
take the one used in latin modern
Hmmm ... which one? dbar or dcroat? ;) (/fonts/lm/doc/fonts/lm/0inf0983.txt tells that both of them are present) Well, I didn't mean that seriously, I know that dbar is there just because of compatibility with the "old" ec.enc files, but ... both in adobe glyph list and unicode the situation is just horrible. "stroke" in unicode is represented by 3 different names (croat, bar, slash): - dcroat - hbar - lslash - oslash - tbar Guess why dstroke/dcroat is named dbar in the ec encoding ... And I forgot yet another possibility in my list of names for that single stupid letter that seems to be used nowhere except in Croatian and Vietnamese ... \dj. Plus the one which should be used as a "fallback" in Slovenian: \definecharacter dstroke {d\zcaron} Out of the seven possibilities I vote for \dstroke and leave the strange name (dcroat) to be handled by *.enc files only. Mojca