On 12/27/06, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Something that is really missing now is code to be able to replace missing glyphs with the corresponding LaTeX macro.
Isn't that what the UCS package is for? Can anyone figure that out? On 12/27/06, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> "Stacia" == Stacia Hartleben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Stacia> Hi everyone thanks for your replies. It seems that I have Stacia> misunderstood the unicode direction for LyX 1.5.0 - can I ask Stacia> in all honesty and with no disrespect meant - what is the Stacia> point of going through all this trouble to make LyX unicode Stacia> compatible if it well, doesn't work with the majority of Stacia> unicode text? The problem we had with our previous 8bit-based document model was that we had to hope that the user had entered its characters in an encoding which was the same as the one used by LaTeX. While this definitely allowed for nice hacks, it was not a very reasonable situation. A first step in the unicode transition is to support properly the encodings we used to support, that is basically european encodings. We should now be able to mix these in a document and obtain proper output. A second goal would be to integrate the cjk-lyx port and get proper support for cjk. This should not be too difficult since the code exists. I understand that this new code is a step back for knowledgeable people who created some neat hacks. Hopefully, we will be able to replace that with working code. Something that is really missing now is code to be able to replace missing glyphs with the corresponding LaTeX macro. JMarc
