Re: [Gretl-devel] gretl's TeX output
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011, Sven Schreiber wrote:
On 12/17/2011 09:38 AM, Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti wrote:
>
> 1) I don't see any harm in providing utf8 support even when the language
> is English. Doesn't do any harm, does it?
In principle I'm also in favor of a uniform handling (that's where the
"uni" in unicode comes from, no?). However, maybe there's a case for the
ascii/English combination as a fallback if utf8 isn't available on the
TeX system, and therefore keep requirements for English to a minimum?
One nice thing about Ken Thompson's brilliant scheme is that ASCII
is a proper subset of UTF-8. Valid ASCII is valid UTF-8. There may
be no harm in putting
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
into gretl's English TeX output, but it's strictly redundant. In
gretl's English output, the only non-ASCII characters are those
supported by native TeX constructs: that is, math characters wrapped
in $..$, \[..\] or equivalent, and en- and em-dashes (TeX: "--" and
"---").
The only characters we actually have to "worry about" are (a)
accented Roman letters and (b) non-Roman letters -- e.g. in Russian
or Greek (other than Greek letters in a mathematical context). And
these simply do not occur in gretl's English output.
Allin