Sean M Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The route I advise/assume is to expand all E<...>'s to their characters, > and then escape all characters (as necessary) to whatever > escape-sequence the output format needs, and then just kill whatever the > output format just can't represent (like all sorts of Unicode arcana). > This approach doesn't distinguish between an � that started out as � > (whether in Latin-1 or some Unicode enocding), a E<233>, a E<0xe9>, or > an E<eacute>.
Right. That's the obviously logical approach to take, and I agree. groff can handle Unicode, so I don't want to unnecessarily limit the output range to Latin-1. No point in coming up with a halfway solution and then just having to redo it anyway. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
