Comments wanted: AGL, Unicode, T1 vs. CE/Baltic

[Lars Hellström]

At 22.29 +0200 2000-09-05, Hilmar Schlegel wrote:
>Lars Hellström wrote:
[snip]
>> If these characters are used in Romanian and Turkish, then why do you refer
>> to them as Baltic characters?
>
>g, k, l, n, r-commaaccent as well as a, e, i, u-ogonek are Baltic
>characters.

OK, what language(s) are _they_ used in?

>> One could put the comma accent (and its upside-down form) in some slot in
>> the TS1 encoding. This would be sufficient for use by the \accent primitive
>> (and various \ialign constructions).
>
>This would be at least one step forward. Not optimal for building
>ligatures though.

What ligatures would you want to build, and is it something real
typographic or just laziness (like the -- to endash ligature)?

[snip]
>> It all sounds terribly complicated (and error-prone) to me. Wouldn't it be
>> better to start working on a T1A (or whatever) encoding to support the
>> needs of the languages that are partly left out in the cold by T1?
>
>It is complicated - therefore I mentioned that I do not see a solution
>(I'd have suggested it here).
>Therefore the few compromizes to come along with the least possible
>irritation for the holy cow: "standard" T1 font layout (to avoid the
>term encoding here).

My guess would be that the only solution you can get accepted is to make
the comma accent working for non-hyphenated words by using the \accent
primitive (et al.) and T1+TS1 encodings, whereas making it work with
hyphenation requires an encoding which is distinct from T1 (in name as well
as in definition).

Lars Hellström