> > I wonder if John Gardner's HTML-canvas renderer could lay down text > > in a dark grey that's additive to what's already there, thus > > over-striking would have an effect, e.g. `\z~o' as well as bold.
Does this not work already? Overstriking diacritics should work the same for the renderer because it's processing the same movement and printing commands Troff generates for post-processing... > > Half-line motions would be nice too, John. ;-) > > Heirloom's nroff still produces ASR-33 codes by default. Don't worry, those are accommodated too <https://github.com/Alhadis/Roff.js/blob/2ebfc4a2634001e5a849ac37f996e88481df4411/lib/postproc/text-grid.js#L646-L680>. =) On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 at 20:38, Ralph Corderoy <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > > > If there's expansions for U+2661 `white heart suit', or U+2665 > > > `black heart suit', etc., then they're `H'. > ... > > Besides, they do not have an ASCII representation, and i really > > wouldn't see see the point in adding one, given that they don't even > > have a groff character name - and it's good that they don't have a > > name, IMHO. > > I agree more groff character names should not be added for these hearts, > and that the two you pointed out that are `Unicode only' seem out of > place in that documentation. > > But there's two things going on here. Mapping `\(HE', etc., and mapping > Unicode runes. Unicode defines two sets of card suites, each > distinguishing between red and black, e.g. here I see U+2661 as an > outline heart versus the filled-in spade of U+2660. > > +4 troff > U+2660 →♠ ♤ SP > U+2661 ♡ →♥ HE > U+2662 ♢ →♦ DI > U+2663 →♣ ♧ CL > > groff maps its four troff characters onto a mix of the two. > > $ groff -Tutf8 <<<'\(SP\(HE\(DI\(CL' | tr -d \\n | > > iconv -t ucs-2le | od -An -tx2 > 2660 2665 2666 2663 > > That's what the arrows are marking in the above list. I'm guessing > that's because they appeared all filled in originally, e.g. with > Hierloom troff pulling in Adobe's Symbol font: > > printf '\\C'\''%s'\''\n' spade heart diamond club | > ./troff -Tps | ./dpost >/tmp/cards.ps > > If the author specifies them by Unicode rune to get an above column of > four then shouldn't `SHDC' appear as approximations for all four, > regardless of column? > > > > An emoji heart would be `<heart>', but there doesn't seem to be a > > > simple plain obvious heart emoji, but dozens. :-) > > > > And those certainly do not deserve assignment of groff character > > names, either. > > No, agreed. So no typesetting of `I❤Unix' using Unicode then? > That would be the place for your `<heart>'. > > > > I wonder if John Gardner's HTML-canvas renderer could lay down text > > > in a dark grey that's additive to what's already there, thus > > > over-striking would have an effect, e.g. `\z~o' as well as bold. > > > For plus points, every glyph placed could have a slight random > > > `jitter' applied to both its coordinates so bold was also thicker, > > > except around the edges. Half-line motions would be nice too, John. > > > ;-) > > > > Right, and i want ponies. And cute little unicorns! ;-) > > I don't think PostScript's graphic model offers compositing two > overlapping 0.7 greys to a saturated 1.0 black, but GhostScript's > https://www.ghostscript.com/doc/9.23/Language.htm#Additional_operators > borrows from PDF 1.4. Heirloom's nroff still produces ASR-33 codes by > default. PostScript from them aiming at over-striking shouldn't be > hard, and GhostScript could then produce PDF, PNGs, ... :-) > > -- > Cheers, Ralph. > https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy > >
