On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Ross Moore wrote:
> > > 2. More than one year ago I asked why \OE was not translated as Œ
> > > and \oe as œ . Ross's answer was that these characters wrer not in
> > > HTML standard.
These numerical character references are explicitly _undefined_. (They
are not illegal, but
> Yes, the guillemets are in Latin-1 and other charsets,
> including Latin-9.
>
> It is the \oe and \OE that are not, but are now in Latin-9.
it's all very odd. particularly since afnor (the french standards
organisation) held the secretariat and chair of the relevant
subcommittee of iso tc97 (
> On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Ross Moore wrote:
>
> > > How are they coded in LaTeX? It should be fairly easy to provide an
> > > appropriate conversion as they are part of the ISO-Latin-1 character set.
> > > Ross?
> >
> > No, they are not in Latin-1; that's the whole problem.
>
> RU sure? See http://
On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Ross Moore wrote:
> > How are they coded in LaTeX? It should be fairly easy to provide an
> > appropriate conversion as they are part of the ISO-Latin-1 character set.
> > Ross?
>
> No, they are not in Latin-1; that's the whole problem.
RU sure? See http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-
> On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, taupin wrote:
>
> > 1. Is there now a means of making the << and >> be converted as French
> > guillemets, as defined in EC fonts (at least as an option). I have 99.1.
>
> How are they coded in LaTeX? It should be fairly easy to provide an
> appropriate conversion as they a
