On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
>
> do we need a module with predefined 'missing from unicode' characters?
I don't think so. We can end up with a neverending and always
incomplete list (with theoretically unlimited number of entries),
usable only to those few people who will care to contribute. In my
opinion such a list is pretty much useless.
Unicode already specifies that one could use "q" followed by
"combining acute". And TeX also has support for {\'q}. Everything else
is private use, something that users might not even use in more than a
single document. I don't see any advantage in creating an endless
incomplete list. In all honesty it's a lot more
useful/readable/straightforward to use {\'q} or proper Unicode in
these cases. And if it's not comfortable enough for the user, he can
always provide his own private definitions.
Thomas and Rik most probably need just the existing mechanism to work
properly. Well, it might be slightly different for Thomas where
Ancient Greek has a limited set of letters, but then such a list
should better be defined in an "ancient greek predefined characters
module".
Just my 2 cents.
Mojca
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
