pclark@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Peter Clark) (10/17/90)
Someone asked me to check the way 2.0 handles diacritical marks (umlauts and such) in the generic text object (i.e. in Edit). They seem to work as expected- alt-a gives an 'a' with a little circle on top. This is second-hand information- I haven't tried it myself, but found out from Scot Hess (author of Stuart, and the 2.0 version of Terminal), so I consider that a trustworthy source. Pete Clark
scott@nic.gac.edu (10/17/90)
pclark@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Peter Clark) writes: >Someone asked me to check the way 2.0 handles diacritical marks (umlauts and >such) in the generic text object (i.e. in Edit). They seem to work as >expected- alt-a gives an 'a' with a little circle on top. Beep! No, alt-a gives a little circle on top (note the absence of the 'a' part in that statement :-). Just now I checked under 1.0 - looks the same as what 1.0 does (be that good or bad). I believe they are mostly the same (else, how can we have binary compatibility?) >This is second-hand information- I haven't tried it myself, but found out from >Scot Hess (author of Stuart, and the 2.0 version of Terminal), so I consider >that a trustworthy source. Hmm, not trustworthy for this - I really don't use diacriticals, thus do not really know what I'm talking about. Can just follow what someone tells me . . . :-) scott hess scott@gac.edu Independent NeXT Developer (Stuart) NeXT Campus Consultant (Not much, really) GAC Undergrad (Horrid. Simply Horrid. I mean the work!) <I still speak for nobody>
davef@jessica.stanford.edu (David Finkelstein) (10/17/90)
In article <97042@srcsip.UUCP> pclark@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Peter Clark) writes: >Someone asked me to check the way 2.0 handles diacritical marks (umlauts and >such) in the generic text object (i.e. in Edit). They seem to work as >expected- alt-a gives an 'a' with a little circle on top. Diacriticals are supported under 2.0, but not in the "correct" way. That is, NeXT has each character like o-umlaut, n-circumflex, etc. mapped as a distinct character -- o with an umlaut on top, u with an umlaut on top, etc. They don't generate the character and then add the umlaut to it. But it still works the way you'd expect, and seems to be consistant with other schemes. I remember reading somewhere in NeXT's documentation that there were some characters that couldn't be mapped properly because NeXT was already using those ASCII values for special characters, but I can't seem to find that information again. David Finkelstein Academic Information Resources Stanford University davef@jessica.stanford.edu