Return-Path: Received: from video.uic.vsu.ru ([62.76.169.38] verified) by vsu.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4b5) with ESMTP id 2100576 for CyrTeX-en@vsu.ru; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:44:01 +0300 Sender: vvv@video.uic.vsu.ru To: (Cyrillic TeX Users Group) Subject: Re: \cyrapos ???? References: From: Vladimir Volovich Date: 21 Nov 2000 12:44:39 +0300 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 29 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii "LS" == Laurent Siebenmann writes: LS> I believe "cyrapos" is a better designation than "textapos". The LS> latter would suggest diacritic status. 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. then, the name `cyrapos' is limiting. LS> Why not \apostrophe or \apos ?? The reason lies in the LS> convention that every cyrillic letter should in the TeX world LS> have a name beginning with \cyr or \CYR. and if the letter is not a cyrillic-only, bug of wider usage, it should probably be named without a `cyr' prefix. LS> Of course there are still nagging questions. Should there exist LS> both \CYRAPOS and \cyrapos as letter status suggests. There is LS> no obstacle to this since one can "equate" them at the glyph LS> level. And unequate them if and when some typographer decides to LS> make a geometric distinction no matter how slight. well, since there is no upper/lowercase variant defined for apos, we should define only one such character. there already exists an example of such character: \CYRpalochka, which is invariant to upper/lowercase conversions. Best, v.