LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Denis B. Roegel" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:27:12 +0100
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> from "Bernard GAULLE" at Nov 17, 99 02:52:45 pm
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (99 lines)
`Bernard GAULLE' wrote
>   >>>>> On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:38:40 +0100, "Denis B. Roegel" <[log in to unmask]> said:
>   DR> When you write \usepackage[frenchb]{babel}, babel tries to load
>   DR> the french hyphenation patterns,
>   definitely no, you can't dynamically load hyphenation files
>   at run time with std TeX engines.

Sorry, I meant "select" instead of "load." I could have said "activates"
or something like that.

>   DR> If you get a document with \usepackage[frenchb]{babel} and you don't
>   DR> have the right hyphenation patterns, you get a wrong output,
>   DR> but it is your fault,
>   no, the end user is nearly never the person who installed TeX
>   and he generally don't know what he can do or not at the stage of
>   languages.

Well, whose fault is it, then? You can argue both ways: the people
who installed TeX, or the people who accept to live in a crippled TeX
environment. My point was that it is the fault of somebody on the
side where the file is used.

>   DR> To some extent the same goes with encodings, both input and output.
>   DR> Given the features of TeX, the choice of the output encoding
>   DR> is relevant for hyphenation,
>   hum, i guess you wanted to say: hyphenation is relevant of the font in use.

No, I meant what I wrote.

>   DR> or if you prefer, the brand of TeX
>   DR> you use (TeX, MlTeX, ...) is not independent of the encoding of
>   DR> fonts you use. I think we agree on this.
>   no, any TeX using mltex option is independent of encodings. You can
>   use CM, EC, Times, ... what you want with any related encoding.
>   It would be so easy if all formats around the world were done
>   with the mltex option. It's free, standard (as an option can be) and
>   without any danger. But life is different ;=)

I meant "the brand of TeX you are using is *usually* not
independent of the (font) encoding you use." Who uses mltex?
Some people, but not everybody.

Besides, I haven't followed the latest developments of MlTeX,
but it used to be the case that fonts had to have a certain
number of free slots for the "fictitious characters" MlTeX
creates, in case these \charsubdef is used.
Is this no longer true? If it is still true, it means
that some fonts cannot be used in MlTeX and at the same time
remapping/virtualization to occur.

>   DR> The point is that
>   DR> common decisions can be made a default, even if they do not suit
>   DR> everybody. And I think most french users of LaTeX use T1 as an output
>   DR> encoding
>   I hope NO, for many reasons i've no time to discuss here (though
>   i hope they switch to T1 when really needed). T1 is not a necessary
>   TeX default encoding for a lot of people and languages.

Well, let's make a survey!

>   DR> This is not to deny that there are other ways of doing things,
>   DR> just that it is sensible to have defaults. In this debate, it is
>   DR> also useful to keep the distinction clear between "consensual defaults"
>   DR> and "local configurations." I am a strong opponent to local
>   DR> configurations that make encodings and other things an implicit *local*
>   DR> default. This goes against portability.
>   no again. Portability means that what you "port" (eg send to someone else)
>   will immediately run without change. But, unfortunately, all language
>   dependent documents need a language hyphenation file you may
>   or may not have
>   in your format, depending of the interest shown by the installing people.

I think some day soon, we will have format generation on demand, like we have
font generation on demand, so that this will no longer be an issue.
I actually wonder why this has not yet been done.

>   DR> There are various ways of implementing the defaults I advocate,
>   DR> but, in some way, they should be tied to the language. I mean,
>   DR> the defaults should be chosen at the time the language is selected
>   DR> (but the defaults can depend on other factors, as I said in another
>   DR> message). [...]
>   DR> It is not much work, and it would benefit to all.
>   it seems you never read my report (a contribution to the LaTeX3 project,
>   vt15d02.tex, dated 21 march 1994!) which list all TeX mechanisms for
>   language processing. not much work, really? Let's see how many years
>   we still wait for that...

No, I haven't read it...

Denis Roegel