[texworks] ver 567 Scripts - Cariag/Line returns now coming back as ??

[Paul A Norman]

Thanks Stefan,

Leaving other things asside knowing that they are in the list for fixing...

The one marker that comes to mind straight away was the big P
paragraph marker which in LaTeX would be \P. ¶ U+00B6 (182)

But again I think that this was all from pasting from a draft
word-processor, as you say different encoding.

I'll post when I get time to try and reproduce these things -- but
suspect now  all the other stuff  has to do with potential encoding
difference between editing engines.

Thanks,
paul

On 17 March 2010 00:04, Stefan Löffler <st.loeffler at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Am 2010-03-16 11:55, schrieb Paul A Norman:
>> So I'm best to convert to QTScript, I don;t have enough experience in
>> LUA for regular expressions but I can do it in JS or QTScript no
>> problem.
>>
>
> This is entirely up to you, of course. Once this is fixed, it shouldn't
> make any difference, though.
>
>> So it looks from Jonathan's post there that I would need to so something like
>>
>> txt =  txt.replace(/\u2029/g, '\n');
>>
>> When this is "fixed" would I need to remove that line?
>>
>
> No, you can keep that line. It simply replaces the odd markers
> (actually, they are not so odd; they are what unicode defines as
> paragraph mark (as opposed to simply forcing a new line); they are just
> not particularly wide spread). When the fix is released, there shouldn't
> be any of those odd markers, so the line wouldn't do anything anymore.
>
>> I have noticed that other characters are similarly treated, is there a
>> table somewhere I could look at please to know how TeXWorks editor
>> handles things pasted from other word processors that look ok in
>> TeXWorks but  perhaps can come back from script as rectangles or
>> ?marks
>>
>
> Really? I haven't come across any of these, yet. So there's no list that
> I know of. But if you could give some examples, this could be helpful.
> A general speculation would be that there is an encoding problem - if
> you have special unicode characters (like an ffi-ligature) in your text,
> they are displayed correctly by Tw, but when passed to scripts and back
> to are not interpreted correctly. But again, without examples to test
> this hypothesis it's just idle speculation.
>
> HTH
> Stefan
>