LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L Archives

LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  February 2001

LATEX-L February 2001

Subject:

Re: Multilingual Encodings Summary

From:

Roozbeh Pournader <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:51:03 +0330

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (103 lines)

I'm sorry I can't correct your term. My English is bad enough to generate
ambiguities. I will only comment:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Marcel Oliver wrote:

[Regarding UTF8]
> - Diagnostic messages could (although not with current TeX engine) be
> output in the correct script.

Really? Not with current TeX engine? Why?

> - The "combining characters" of Unicode are difficult to handle with a
> TeX based parser. (Does "difficult" mean "impossible to get
> right"??? What are the issues???)

Every letter should be made active to look forward to find the combining
character sequence after it, and then puts that over its own head! I don't
think this is impossible, you need to loop until a non-combining char is
found.

> - The output encoding is limited to 8 bit fonts, which may not be
> enough to get correct kerning for some languages. (Can someone
> confirm or correct this???)

We need some examples. I can't find any.

> - How are combining characters handled, in particular when they
> represent a glyph that has also its own Unicode slot? The main
> issue is hyphenation. How do Unicode capable word processors handle
> this?

The term is "normalization". Unicode lists some sequences to be exactly
equivalent. For example, a" can be coded as <A>+<COMBINING UMLAUT> or
<A-UMLAUT>. Software should behave exactly the same when encountering
these two. They are recommended to use a normalization from which is more
appropriate for their usage. Having not played with them enough, I can't
suggest which of them is appropriate for LaTeX. The reference is:

        http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr15

> - Unicode is still changing, especially with respect to math
> characters. Does this prevent us from getting correct basic
> infrastructure in place?

With math yes, but with other things no, the model is getting stable.

We will need comments from David.

> - Requirements for non-European scripts that have not been adequately
> addressed?

I don't believe it to be the case. They are sometimes even more addressed
than needed. The only nag that often arises:

- Derivate scripts people, like Japanese, Persian, Yiddish, etc, nag that
they can't have both the original script and the derivate in a
plain text file. They want language-switching mechanisms for "plain text".

This is not a problem with LaTeX, so LaTeX has higher markup mechanisms.

> As explained above, the TeX engine has limited capabilities for
> multilingual typesetting and requires some rather awkward workarounds
> for non-English languages. Omega with its internal Unicode
> representation is certainly an alternative. What is the current state
> of Omega, what are potential problems, and are there other
> possibilities?

The main problem of Omega, seems to be feature-unstability. But with both
Unicode and the i18n model stabilizing in the outer world, Omega is also
stabilizing.

One of the good things with Oemga (I hope), will be it's new development
model. It may get really feature-rich.

> - It appears that Omega uses a 16 bit internal representation. Is
> this a restriction that may cause problems later, when someone finds
> needed glyphs are outside the 16 bit range?

Omega has already changed its internal representation to 32-bits. So it
will be able to use Unicode's "supplementary characters". This will solve
the glyph code problem, and it because Unicode only uses code points less
than U+10FFFF, there is a lot of space if we want additional internal
glyphs.

> - Would the decision to move beyond TeX cause a feature explosion in
> the engine that would be difficult to control? On the other hand,
> are there feature in e-TEX, NTS and friends that are deemed
> essential or highly desirable, but are not provided by Omega?

Omega has disbanded supporing TeX--XeT primitives: \beginL, \endL,
\beginR, \endR. They are available in e-TeX, and there exists current
software that uses them. Omega replaces that with a stronger mechanism
though, and I think that those can be redefined as macros in terms of the
new primitives.

> - Judging from past release schedules, LaTeX will receive a major
> upgrade about once every 10 years. So if we wait until 2014 to get
> state-of-the art international support, we may lose a lot of
> potential users.

We're losing them right now.

--roozbeh

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
July 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
March 2002
December 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Universität Heidelberg | Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager