[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New accent modifier types?

Brian McMahon wrote:
>> When I first looked into accents, I thought the Latin1 and Latin2
>> character groups should be sufficient, but Latin3 and Latin4 are needed
>> to include some characters accents like over-bar.
> Again, the existing markup has been adequate for the requirements of
> Acta C (and E) for 15 years, but it won't cover all conceivable
> possibilities. (The greatest need for accented characters is
> in authors' names; and, as an international journal, we need to
> accommodate authors from anywhere in the world, including Iceland.)
> However, the more feature creep you allow (in terms of accommodating
> possible markup), the greater the overhead. TeX, for example, seems
> the natural choice for math markup; but even so, many math symbols
> aren't defined in vanilla TeX, and one needs to be able to support
> TeX extension packages - and to support them in a portable and
> archival way. HTML and XML approaches can be followed, but also
> require support of DTDs, schemas, entity tables etc. Unicode
> offers a very large library of glyphs, but even that won't cover
> all requirements. Sure, there are mechanisms for extending Unicode,
> but they also require support and systematisation.
> How far down this road should CIF go? At this stage, I wouldn't
> care to commit myself. I will say, though, that the discussion
> so far is encouraging, in that it begins to offer a clean way
> (through MIME types and associated external delegates or handlers)
> to support existing standard mechanisms for text processing
> that should sit nicely alongside the image-handling mechanisms
> of imgCIF.

In terms of simple CIF markup, I think that a few extra accent types are
OK, but the the basic syntax should be simple. That is why I ignores
Cyrillic, Arabic, etc., because they are just too different from plain

In fact, my hope is to actually simplify the syntax by converting the
ones with no backslash to a more uniform format. I think it is also a
good idea to stop using the <B> and <I> html tags. Of course, having a
means to do proper HTML as an alternative makes this more reasonable.

comcifs mailing list

Reply to: [list | sender only]