On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 07:45:34PM -0400, Karljurgen Feuerherm wrote:
> Thierry,
>
> > I only say that:
>
> > 1) Forcing, as this was written in the XeTeX FAQ, user to enter the
> special codepoint for the fi ligature since, white eyes, scornful wave
> of the hand: "this is the way this is done with Unicode" is sheer
> stupidity.
>
> I don't know who told you that... just because there is a codepoint for
> something does not mean that one has to access that codepoint directly in all
> cases. Software at various levels can render a ligature on the basis of
> various actual character sequences (e.g. f + i, or f, i when ligatures are
> forced, etc.
>
> It's simply a level of what support one wishes to offer....
This is exactly what I'm trying to say. If one enters \'e, \' is just
the "charname" or macro command to access the acute accent in the font.
One can enter directly the code for the acute accent. Or one can enter
directly the é (if the CID entered is classified as "other" [literal],
and the fonts have something at the corresponding index).
BUT the documentation found told that with "modern" fonts, one has the
absolute obligation threatened by Thy Unicode GOD to enter the codepoint
and that ligatures were deprecated.
TeX is absolutely agnostic. It is an engine, a compiler/interpreter.
Even tex(1) is just the name of an instance of TeX with a special
convention: D.E. Knuth's plain TeX.
some \'e let
CID
>
> KF
--
Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
http://www.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
