Return-Path: Received: from matups.math.u-psud.fr ([129.175.50.4] verified) by vsu.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4b5) with ESMTP id 2104210 for CyrTeX-en@vsu.ru; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:51:06 +0300 Received: from stats.math.u-psud.fr (beryl.math.u-psud.fr [129.175.54.194]) by matups.math.u-psud.fr (8.11.0/jtpda-5.3.3) with ESMTP id eAMDoX716298 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:50:33 +0100 (MET) Received: (from sieben@localhost) by stats.math.u-psud.fr (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id OAA29310 for CyrTeX-en@vsu.ru; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:52:15 GMT Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:52:15 GMT From: Laurent Siebenmann Message-Id: <200011221452.OAA29310@stats.math.u-psud.fr> To: CyrTeX-en@vsu.ru Subject: Re: \cyrapos ???? Hi Vladimir, You write: > there already exists an example of such > character: \CYRpalochka, which is invariant to > upper/lowercase conversions. Interesting. Then maybe \CYRapos is the right solution? However, that will place a stubborn road- block in the way of the typographer who wants distinct lowercase and uppercase Cyrillic apostrophes. Maybe there are none today (??). But what about the furure? The \CYRAPOS \cyrapos solution seems more standard and more powerful (less limiting). > is the apos character (letter modifier) used in > other (non-cyrillic) languages? i think that yes, > since it is defined in non-cyrillic unicode area. I hope others will chime in here. Most of the uses in English, French and German that I know may well be non-letter and covered by the vague: 0027;quotesingle;APOSTROPHE I would just note that Unicode is *not* a model of clarity here since in English quotesingle and APOSTROPHE are disjoint meanings with an accidental coincidence in the ASCII and Unicode norms: Octet "27=39 has several meanings. TeX can do better here in the Cyrillic world where TeX is young and flexible. You suggest at a couple of points that the concept of a 'trans-script' letter is a good idea and in particular that "apos" should be regarded as one. To support this thesis you rightly note that many many *non*-letters are common to the Cyrillic and Latin scripts. As for 'trans-script' *letters*, one might reasonably claim that the (hard) hyphen is one. (I agree that it is 'trans-script' but I do *not* agree that it is a *letter* even though it is found in dictionary listings. The notion of a trans-script *letter* seems vvvvvery doubtful to me. One could gaily claim that the letters A,E,K,M,O,T,X are obviously common to Cyrillic and Latin and that in consequence CYRA, CYRE, ... should somehow be eliminated (:=/ Is it not dangerous to allow even one letter in the Cyrillic script fall out of the 100% control of Cyrillic users?? Cheers Laurent S.