Re: [Groff] grops and Unicode, Unicode in general.

[Werner LEMBERG]

> > Volunteers, volunteers!  I'm swamped with other work.
> 
> And which approach do you like best? The one you initially proposed
> -- having internal Char type or going in wchar_t-transparent
> direction (we would get multibyte input as a bonus)?  The latter
> seems to me a better approach (judged by standards :), but I'm not
> sure about portability issues that may arise (there may still be
> platforms out there that still do not have wide characters).

I still vote for not using wchar_t.  groff is often used to replace
old troff installations on old OS versions, and wchar support on such
platforms is regularly broken.

> > They aren't stable yet.  The developer has started to play with
> > fontforge and changed some metrics so that URW is no longer
> > compatible (w.r.t. metrics) with the standard PS fonts.
> 
> Hmm. Perhaps, some old release without these issues could be chosen?
> These fonts were quite good looking from the very beginning (for my
> non-professional eye :).

But the older (good) fonts directly produced by URW don't have
Cyrillic glyphs...  Can you investigate the state of those fonts,
probably by contacting the author(s) or the ghostscript people, and
checking the ghostscript bugs page?  Maybe they've meanwhile released
a new version which fixes those problems.


    Werner