![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/6af06dcf5f958fe4ec149408292d6acd.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hi Mojca, On Dec 9, 2007, at 7:48 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
On Dec 9, 2007 5:07 PM, Willi Egger wrote:
or even more weird ones: !` -> inverted exclam ?` -> inverted question
For Spanish this is definitevely necessary. Again if coded in UTF there is no problem.
Do Spansh users still key them in like that (apart from old TeX-ies who have never heard abot anything beyond \v, \", \')? I mean: would anyone miss those two ligatures? (I assume that people need to use inverted quotation marks in Word as well ...)
I was not to the point on this and I misinterpreted your question. Sorry. Indeed the well known coding of umlauts and alike with \"... should be there for sake of compatibility. - If those would vanish, this would mean for me to re-encode a couple of thousand pages ... Coming back to the quotation-marks. IMHO one should stick to the \quote and \quotation constructs. This and only this allows you to change the appearance of the marks depending on a given language or adjust them to the style of a print-house/publisher. I would suggest not to make provisions in order to automatically convert ,, into „ . There will be consistency problems and the behaviour of Word i.e. that things happen while you have difficulty to control them.
Ono problem is that that's a "well known" TeX behaviour though (documented in beginner's manual as well).
Some ligatures are handy indeed: -- -> endash --- -> emdash ' -> right single quote (I'm, isn't etc.)
Sure this is important, I suggest to add the horizontal ellipsis
\dots? But what if one decides to use, say, 10 dots in a row? That might lead to weird effects (non-evenly spaced dots). -- and --- have been well established, so one would be careful enough before writing "----------". And there's \dots, so that one could have been mapped to ellipsis if needed.
The ellipsis is typographically an important 'character'. So todays solution with \dots or \unknown is fine to me. When necessary one can adjust the kerning of the dots for style-purposes. Otherwise one could discuss to convert three consecutive dots (and only those) to the horizontal ellipsis in Unicode, which would look always better than three dots from the keyboard. Also here it is questionable whether to have automatic conversion. Again this is resembling Word and how to keep grip on what is happening. IMHO the user who places an x-number of dots or dashes must know what he does. There might not be a generic solution for such cases. Willi
Thanks, Mojca ______________________________________________________________________ _____________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ______________________________________________________________________ _____________