Comments wanted: Directory structure of fontinst/inputs/

Vladimir Volovich
Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:01:05 -0400

"KT" == Karsten Tinnefeld writes:

 HS> There is obviously no such character like an upper case . If you
 HS> need for one reason or another a SS, then fake it.
 >> i wonder, why then T1 encoding contains uppercase  (it looks
 >> like SS). :-) should this be fixed too by removing SS glyph from
 >> T1?
 KT> it is there so that you can {\uppercase }.

isn't the \uppercase command deprecated in LaTeX? one should use
\MakeUppercase instead, and the latter has a mechanism to deal with
such things. i.e. it is possible to set up \MakeUppercase to
automatically translate  into SS (not ligature). compare how
upper/losercase translations like \OE <-> \oe, \AE <-> \ae, etc work
even in OT1 encoding which does not contain the glyphs.

BTW, OT1 encoding just contains lowercase \ss, but no \SS;
but nevertheless, upper/lowercase translations for \ss <-> \SS
work fine in OT1 due to the default definition:

so, the SS "ligature" is really not needed for \MakeUppercase to work,
and the question still remains: why was it put into T1, and should it
better be removed (if T1 ever changes).

 >> and while we are here, one more question: iso-8859-1 contains
 >> ydieresis but does not contain an uppercase form: Ydieresis. Why
 >> is it so? Is it because the languages which are supported by
 >> iso-8859-1 and which need ydieresis, do not use Ydieresis?

 KT> In the Netherlands,  is afaik the same as the ij ligature, and
 KT> in the uppercase form, the IJ ligature is used almost always.

oh, and is then the current behavior of LaTeX correct, when it
uppercases ydieresis to Ydieresis but not to IJ ligature?

	Best regards, -- Vladimir.