T1 (was Re: Comments wanted: Directory structure of fontinst/inputs/)
Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:47:29 -0400
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Hilmar Schlegel wrote:
> > This is a well-known issue. Romanian delegates weren't careful enough when
> > the ISO 8859-2 standard was in preparation, so cedilla slipped in place of
> > comma below,
> It is no problem to use the correct characters in IsoLatin2-encoding!
Well, depends on how you look at it. If you are adhering strictly to the
standard, ISO 8859-2 is not suitable neither for Romanian nor for Turkish.
I believe this was also the rationale for ISO 8859-16 (Latin 10) proposal
> > ... T with cedilla was retained in the
> > ISO10646 standard on 0x0162/0x0163, although it is to my knowledge used in
> > no language.
> Correct: there is no such character. Unicode & AGL are fixed.
This must have been corrected in Unicode 3.0.1 then. In 3.0 it was still
there (page 350 in the book).
But this discussion is actually straying away from the issue of TeX font
encoding and fontinst, right?
Best regards, Primoz
Primož Peterlin, Inštitut za biofiziko, Med. fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani
Lipičeva 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija. firstname.lastname@example.org
Tel: +386-1-5437632, fax: +386-1-4315127, http://sizif.mf.uni-lj.si/~peterlin/