Follow-up Comment #4, bug #66980 (group groff): [comment #3 comment #3:] > Good to hear from you! I'm relieved and was starting to worry a little.
Glad I posted before you assembled a search party, then!
> Yes, but the same can be said of:
>
>> * tty.tmac
>
> ...which leaves me a little up in the air about both of these
> not-really-typesetter devices.
True, but the situation is not entirely analogous, as there's no "devtty":
grotty sends output to devascii, devlatin1, or devutf8. And we know that the
first two of these don't have a U+2026 but the third does. (We _don't_ know
whether the font ultimately used for devutf8 output includes a U+2026, but
that's no longer groff's problem.) So an ".fchar \[u2026]" in tty.tmac will
do the right thing for all three formats: it'll use the fallback for devascii
and devlatin1, and the UTF-8 character for devutf8.
The same set of knowns and unknowns may apply to devhtml as well; I'm not
familiar with it. For instance, if groff already writes HTML using UTF-8
encoding, it's probably best to output a U+2026 and let the renderer worry
about it from there.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66980>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
