On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: > Putting an accent on the next character is not a good idea. The > PostScript manual says that the accents (range \220 - \237) exist for > historical reason, and they are not defined in the Latin-x encodings
Hm, I didn't see that in the manual, could you tell me where to look? The combining accents seem to be there in Latin-1 encoding (at least in Adobe's variant of it, I'm no expert here). I found reference to the in the postscript manual in the context of defining combined characters for glyphs not existing in the current encoding, but since I couldn't figure out how to do that, I took a somewhat simpler approach. I think the benefit of this is that it only relies on ISOLatin1Encoding, which is available on every postscript output device. > (I remember we used this mecanism when printers had only ASCII > characters). Then the result is not very nice, especially with > proportional fonts. Actually, I was quite positively surprised at the results I got. Have you had a look at, e.g., http://www.th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~reiter/govori.ps It's not perfect, but. at least for me, it's far better than not having those accented characters available. > So, with abcm2ps, better use the right encoding. Then, if you want > many encodings, this does not work for now. I will have a look at > Unicode for the next development branch. Do you have any information on how far Unicode support is spread in the postscript world? Greetings, Manuel To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
