Re: [Groff] Re: experimental multibyte support

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 04:39:43AM +0900, Fumitoshi UKAI wrote:
> Previous patch 1.18-6.u1 has a bug regarding `uXXXX'.
> It failed to handle some groff glyph name, such as `ua' in devhtml.
> This is fixed in version 1.18-6.u2. This version also works
> groff -Thtml for Japanese.
> 
> At Sun, 22 Sep 2002 10:02:49 +0200 (CEST),
> Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> 
> > Very good!  Hopefully, you can assist during the transition to
> > Unicode.
> 
> Yes, I'll try.
>  
> > >  - \[u<code>] support, where code is unicode.
> > >    So, you can write \[u3042] for `HIRAGANA LETTER A'
> > 
> > Uh, oh, please be careful.  \[...] are glyph entities, not input
> > character codes.  Please read the article
> > 
> >   Re: [Groff] Some thoughts on glyphs
> > 
> > from Aug. 26th in the mailing list archive how I will support Unicode
> > on the glyph side.
> 
> Oh, I missed to read the article.
> Ah, my patch just support glyph name \[uXXXX] for glyph for Unicode
> character U+XXXX which is not a composite character.
> To avoid conflict with groff glyph names, it uses negative index for
> glyph for unicode characters, where positive index for groff glyph names.
> I'm not sure this is good solution, maybe there are more good one.
> Anyway, it seems to work for me (at least Japanese).

Now that groff 1.18.1 has been released, I need to resync the Japanese
patch anyway so I should probably merge this into the Debian groff
package. Have you reached agreement on whether this additional glyph is
a good idea?

-- 
Colin Watson                                  address@hidden