[XeTeX] Hyphenation in Transliterated Sanskrit
pander at users.sourceforge.net
Mon Sep 12 13:27:52 CEST 2011
On 2011-09-12 13:18, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
> Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:09, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)
>> <P.Taylor at rhul.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> I wish I understood more about the "duplicate apostophe" problem, in order
>>> to be able to offer a more directly relevant (and constructive) comment :
>>> Google throws up nothing relevant.
>> Users type ' (U+0027) and expect the proper apostrophe (U+2019) to
>> show up in final PDF. Knuth just replaced the character (you cannot
>> get U+0027 in pdfTeX, except in typewriter font). In XeTeX
>> mapping=tex-text does that, but not all users use that one, so we need
>> to support both variants.
> OK, (sort of) understood. But does a Unicode-aware user /really/ type (U+0027)
> [APOSTROPHE] if if he/she wants (U+0219) [ RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK]
> other than through habit/laziness ? I can quite see an ASCII-based TeX user doing
> just that, but those that are capable of entering real Unicode must surely be aware
> of the multiplicity of apostrophe-like characters  available to them, and be capable
> of choosing the correct one, must they not ?
Copy and paste from applications such as MS Word™®© which can do
automatic replacement of U+0027 to U+0219 might introduce these
characters somewhere in the process. so unfortunately many users are not
aware that this is happening.
For this reason the Dutch hyphenation patterns are allowing both but is
> ** Phil.
>  Including, but not restricted to, APOSTROPHE, RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK,
> LEFT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK, PRIME, MODIFIER LETTER PRIME,
> SINGLE HIGH-REVERSED-9 QUOTATION MARK, ...
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
More information about the XeTeX