work on a Linux console, e.g. The JUnit tests will too, though 'ant
check' still fails because we don't sneak the -Djava.awt.headless=true
into the process early enough.
which means that the command-line tool can finally function with a headless
graphics device. Hopefully it will speed things up, too. It also means that
entering Roman text into the TMW->Unicode conversion and TMW->TM
conversion will be easy.
Added support for two more oddballs.
Deprecated the oddball lookup method because it drops up to 30 glyphs in
TibetanMachine. The correct solution is to transform the RTF before Java's
busted RTF readers ever see it. \'97 becomes \u151, e.g.
beginning of the document as they should and as they are documented to.
They now do, and they bracket the bad characters with the TM or TMW for
U+0F3C on the left and the TM or TMW for U+0F3D on the right.
Some cleanup.
the troublesome glyphs are now put at the beginning of the document
AFTER AN ACHEN. This makes a glyph like \tmw7095 visible atop the
achen.
Major fix to the handling of paragraphs in conversion; we were (for
whatever reason) dropping paragraphs before.
faster than TMW->Unicode etc.; this is because many fewer replacements
are made (i.e., more text is replaced each time a replacement is
performed).
I must find a way to still preserve formatting but do many fewer
replacements in TMW->{Unicode,TM} and TM->TMW.
inserting 5 characters at a time and then skipping ahead just one
position. I don't think this affected correctness.
I believe there's still a terrible (exponential?) slowdown as the
input file gets bigger, however. Perhaps not -- but we run through
the first 1000 TMW glyphs in 6 seconds, the 20th thousand takes at
least 60 seconds. Is TMW->Wylie faster than TMW->Unicode? If so,
why?
Thought: don't use a DuffPane within TibetanConverter -- it can only
add overhead, right? My hprof profile said that the conversion was
taking just a couple of percent of the work; the rest was going to
display-related stuff that you should only see if you were displaying
the document. I'm not!
Is the EWTS '_' to be represented as U+0020, or is it a wider space?
Does TMW9.42, Dza, map to U+0F5F,U+0F39?
Does TMW6.60, r+y, map to U+0F62,U+0FBB or to U+0F6A,U+0FBB? (Likewise with r+w, TMW6.61, TMW6.62, etc.)
Is U+0F7E a bindu? What Unicode does TMW7.96 map to, for example? What does TMW7.91 map to?
Should TMW8.97 and TMW8.98 map to swastiskas elsewhere in Unicode? If so, which codepoints? Likewise with TMW9.60, a Chinese character.
Does TMW7.68 map to U+0F39?
Does TMW7.74, the ITHI secret sign, have a Unicode mapping? f68,fa0,f80,f72 comes close, but fa0 would be too large, wouldn't it?
What Unicode does TMW9.61 map to? Is it for sequences like f40,f7c,f60,f72? Or is it for f60,f72,f7c?
