On 1/17/2014 7:39 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
do we need a module with predefined 'missing from unicode' characters?
I don't think so. We can end up with a neverending and always incomplete list (with theoretically unlimited number of entries), usable only to those few people who will care to contribute. In my opinion such a list is pretty much useless.
Unicode already specifies that one could use "q" followed by "combining acute". And TeX also has support for {\'q}. Everything else is private use, something that users might not even use in more than a single document. I don't see any advantage in creating an endless incomplete list. In all honesty it's a lot more useful/readable/straightforward to use {\'q} or proper Unicode in these cases. And if it's not comfortable enough for the user, he can always provide his own private definitions.
Thomas and Rik most probably need just the existing mechanism to work properly. Well, it might be slightly different for Thomas where Ancient Greek has a limited set of letters, but then such a list should better be defined in an "ancient greek predefined characters module".
the mechanisms works ok (i just made it a bit more efficient, not that it matters much)
Just my 2 cents.
it depends on to what extend such characters play a different role too and need to travel around (but as there never was any demand for that i assume 2 cents will do) Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------