Re: [Groff] Re: groff: radical re-implementation

[Werner LEMBERG]

> > This is not true.  Encoding does *not* imply the character set.
> > You are talking about charset/encoding tags.
> 
> Hmm, I cannot understand your idea...
> 
> I intend to mean
>  - character set: CCS (Coded Character Set) in RFC 2130
>  - encoding: CES (Character Encoding Scheme) in RFC 2130

First of all:  We both mean the same, and we agree how to handle the
problem in groff.  I'm only arguing about technical terms.

Another try.

Consider a PostScript font with its encoding vector.  You have a
single glyph set which can map to multiple encodings.  My intention is
to use the terms `set' and `encoding' in a consistent way -- I want to
avoid that we have to use other words if we are talking about glyphs
instead of characters.


    Werner