[OS X TeX] fontenc documentation...
herbs at wideopenwest.com
Sun Feb 1 17:58:02 CET 2009
On Feb 1, 2009, at 10:47 AM, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
> Basically, my problem is that according to:
> The area covered by fontenc is pretty much also covered by inputenc.
> Also, the FAQ says that "only fontenc has the means to convert [\'e]
> into the T1 character", but I just found that in Texshop I could
> type \'e without _any_ fontenc preamble and LaTeX was still able to
> process that...
> Considering that I'm thinking about people who _won't_ type such
> sequences, but rather "é" directly, what is the preferred/more
> modern/more intuitive choice. fontenc or inputenc ? I'd personally
> go for inputenc if I understood all the implications...
Two different problems. I wrote about this in early January:
I assume you are talking about the whole encoding mess.
The problem is that once you get past the basic 128 character ASCII
set there have been multiple, INCOMPATIBLE ways of representing
(encoding) the extended character set; e.g., Mac Roman, Latin 1,
UTF-8. The last encoding is the first that seems to have universal
acceptance. TeX got around this problem by only using ASCII characters
and macros to construct accented character, etc. In LaTeX the inputenc
package allows for a translation from the stored encoding to something
LaTeX can understand.
There are actually three things that must cooperate. The Editor must
save and read the source file in a known encoding so that it can
display the extended character set correctly. In TeXShop this is done
with a line such as
%%!TEX encoding = UTF-8 Unicode
near the top of the file before saving the file (or changing the
default encoding to UTF-8 in TeXShop->Preferences). The second is to
tell LaTeX how to interpret the extended character set (i.e.,
understand the a certain character number means é) using a line like
for UTF-8 encoding. Finally the font you are using must have that
character in a certain location in the font file. To do this a line like
tells LaTeX how to map the particular input code to an actual glyph to
be printed with ink onto the paper. Oh, one more thing, the font
itself must have the character or a blank glyph will be printed; e.g.,
the Latin Modern fonts, an extended version of Computer Modern, does
have the character while Computer Modern doesn't.
Hope that I've got that right and it's comprehensible.
(herbs at wideopenwest dot com)
More information about the macostex-archives