On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 18:27 -0500, Karl Berry wrote: > it is not clear where they get their advice from. > > Sebastian decided as best he could, many years ago. Very little has > changed in the set of "recommended" TL packages for a long time now. At that time ucs.sty was probably the only way to use UTF-8 encoded text for LaTeX. Nowadays inputenc.sty includes UTF-8 capabilities that handles many cases, so that ucs.sty is more for special cases, ie more "extra" than "recommended". > Anyway, the main point here is not the classification of ucs, but rather > the possible bug in it. I see on > http://www.unruh.de/DniQ/latex/unicode/ that Dominique Unruh is no > longer able to maintain the unicode package (which contains ucs.sty), > and a new maintainer is welcome. > > Perhaps someone here would like to take it on ...
I am not sure, but the time to do this might be better spend extending the Unicode-coverage of the UTF-8 implementation in inputenc.sty. AFAIK that's the area where ucs.sty is still better than inputenc.sty. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
