<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
In a message dated 26/7/04 4:45:59 pm, ross@ics.mq.edu.au writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE CITE STYLE="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" TYPE="CITE"></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">> If you need something more than a simple character code remapping for<BR>
> certain characters, perhaps those instances could be handled as<BR>
> \active characters in TeX, while the "mapping=...." option would allow<BR>
> you to remap the majority of simple characters without having to<BR>
> \activate just about everything. Reasonable compromise?<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
<BR>
I suspect this might prove far more valuable than it first looks. Would it not allow one to remap from one script to another? So that one might type Hindi in unicode Roman transliteration and then be able to output it either as Roman transliterated text or Devanagari, depending on the "mapping" used for an environment?<BR>
<BR>
Somadeva</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"></FONT></HTML>