[latex3-commits] [git/LaTeX3-latex3-latex2e] ltnew33: bump to 3o (0021c677)

[Frank Mittelbach]

Repository : https://github.com/latex3/latex2e
On branch  : ltnew33
Link       : https://github.com/latex3/latex2e/commit/0021c677471cf59711647eacca30d8f067940003

>---------------------------------------------------------------

commit 0021c677471cf59711647eacca30d8f067940003
Author: Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach at latex-project.org>
Date:   Mon May 24 18:42:13 2021 +0200

    bump to 3o


>---------------------------------------------------------------

0021c677471cf59711647eacca30d8f067940003
 base/doc/ltnews33.tex | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/base/doc/ltnews33.tex b/base/doc/ltnews33.tex
index b34586d2..04532f24 100644
--- a/base/doc/ltnews33.tex
+++ b/base/doc/ltnews33.tex
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 %%  Temporary: quick draft identification --
-%%  This is Draft 3n.
+%%  This is Draft 3o.
 % \iffalse meta-comment
 %
 % Copyright 2019-2021
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@
 \tubcommand{\input{tubltmac}}
 
 \publicationmonth{June}
-\publicationyear{2021 --- Draft Version 3n}
+\publicationyear{2021 --- Draft Version 3o}
 
 \publicationissue{33}
 
@@ -447,9 +447,20 @@ to load this package in order to access glyphs such as
  \cs{textcopyright}, \cs{texteuro} or \cs{textyen}.
  
  %%CCC  Extra news,summarised:
+ %%FMi but not really correct :-( That approach was used already 10-15 years ago,
+ %%FMi  only back then with 5 classes now with 10 given that there are more fonts around nowadays.
+ %%FMi
+ %%FMi Bottom line, I really don't see that this is better than my original (give or take copy-editing),
+ %%FMi the only thing is that is it now noticeably longer (while at the same time having lost 2 important
+ %%FMi paragraphs at the end, which I have reintroduced) and as a result now runs over the 6 pages we had before.
+
+ %%FMi if this block is dropped we are back to 6 pages
+ %%FMi it reads nice, but as I said it is not correct really as that was always the case only less granular
+ 
+ \iffalse 
  At this time the opprtunity was also taken to bring some order to the 
  chaos surrounding the question: \enquote{which glyphs from
-  the \texttt{TS1} encoding are aviailable in a given font?}. 
+  the \texttt{TS1} encoding are available in a given font?}. 
 This was done using an approach based on font families and collections, with the differing 
 glyph coverage of the \enquote*{text symbols} being indicated by assigning to a font family or collection 
 a 'sub-encoding number' that indicates which glyphs from the \texttt{TS1} encoding are guaranteed to be available when using 
@@ -457,11 +468,18 @@ a font from that family or collection. This assignment ensures
 that \LaTeX{} always errs on the side of caution, possibly 
 claiming that a glyph is not available even when it in fact is.  
 
+
 %%CCC  Plus info:
+%%FMi  who is the ``we'' in this note? I'm not prepared to write that full explanation beyond what is there in lttextcomp
+%%FMi  in the forseeable future.
+
 The documented code for this can be found now in the file 
 \file{lttextcomp.dtx} but we hope to publish a full explanation of 
 the approach very soon now. 
 
+\fi  %% FMi potenial drop
+
+
 %%CCC Removed:
 %%  A full explanation of both the history and the current status of 
 %%   package and the \enquote{text symbol encoding} (\texttt{TS1}) encoding 
@@ -498,9 +516,17 @@ the approach very soon now.
  
 %%CCC Also changed wording:
 %%      \subsubsection{A note on the \texttt{TS1} encoding}
+
+
+%%FMi the point is not the history, the point is what to do if
+%%FMi there is trouble and to understand that, a bit of history is needed
+%%FMi so I think your title focusses on the wrong topic
+%%FMi (and which is why I didn't make any such split)
+
 \subsubsection[A note on the history of `text symbols']%
    {A note on the history of `text symbols' and
-      the  \texttt{TS1} encoding}
+     the  \texttt{TS1} encoding}
+
 
 The \enquote{text symbol encoding} (\texttt{TS1}) was originally
 designed at the Cork Conference as a companion to the \texttt{T1}
@@ -563,6 +589,24 @@ The downside is, that \LaTeX{} then believes other glyphs that are in fact
 unavailable are also there, so that it is important to check that the
 final document doesn't have some missing glyphs.
 
+%%FMi: all that part got lost in moving stuff back and forth!
+%%FMi: and that is part of the advice why the whole section is there!
+
+An alternative is to pretend that \cs{textasciigrave} can always be
+taken from the \texttt{TS1} encoding (no questions asked):
+\begin{verbatim}
+  \DeclareTextSymbolDefault{\textasciigrave}{TS1}
+\end{verbatim}
+Again there is a danger that this is not true when it is used with a
+different font and would then generate a missing glyph.
+
+Finally, and possibly the best solution, if not impossible for other
+reasons, is to simply use a different font, for example, to use the
+\TeX{} Gyre Cursor font (a reimplementation of Courier with a
+much more complete glyph set).
+
+
+
 
 \section{New or improved commands}
 
@@ -783,8 +827,12 @@ extended class/package processing systems.  Note that, for
 compatibility reasons, the standard option processing code has not
 been changed.
 
+
+
 %%DPC restore mention of unused option warning change
-One change does affect the standard \mbox{processing}: any tokens to the
+One
+aspect of this %%FMi added
+change does affect the standard \mbox{processing}: any tokens to the
 right of an \texttt{=} %% tt added
 sign are \mbox{removed} 
 from consideration    %% from the