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:

hyphenation morass

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 9 Feb 2001 16:38:29 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (109 lines)

I've just looked again at the hyphenation patterns available for TeX and every
time I do that again I'm shocked what I find (in several respects).

one of the big problems that i see is that for most patterns out there it is
absolutely not clear for what kind of font encoding they have been produced.

With very few notable exceptions all of them are encoded using some sort of
hard code table, ie ^^ notation so that they are valid only for a single font
encoding.

This seems very unfortunate since if they would be stored in a different
format it would be possible to apply them to different font encodings.

Take, for example, T1 and LY1 both of which do contain all the glyphs needed
for a number of languages. Therefore a pattern set for French, or German, or
Polish, or ... should be usable with any fonts in either encoding. But
unfortunately they are not because they refer to things like ^^b9 meaning \'z
(this is an example from the plhyph.tex file).

if we would replace such patterns by patterns looking like .\'c\'z8 we would
be able to reuse the patterns for several font encodings provided the internal
latex representations \'c etc are doing the right thing within the \patterns
command.

Analysing the behaviour of the fontencoding specific commands we can see the
following:

 \DeclareTextComposite \DeclareTextSymbol are fine as they expand in the mouth
 (using old TeX terminology) to a font position which is what we want

 But toplevel \DeclareTextCommand (such as \L in OT1) are likely a problem
 and so is most likely anything done via \DeclareTextCompositeCommand.

 Finally we do have \DeclareTextAccent which is also not suitable by default
 in a \patterns declaration since it results in a call to the \accent
 primitive.

So before discussion what could be done here let me first explain what is
currently being done with some of the hyphenation files.

A concept found in several files is to surround potentially problematic
patterns by a command \n which is, depending on the encoding used, either
defined to be \def\n#1{} (ie ignore) or \def\n#1{#1} use.

In other words you have a hyphenation file, say for German, which can be used
with T1 encoding but also with OT1 encoding by simply removing all patterns
which contain references to umlauts or sharp s. I'm not sure if the resulting
pattern file is the optimum possible for an encoding like OT1 (actually i
doubt that) but it is certainly sufficently accurate enough to be usable.
Perhaps Bernd Raichle can comment on this.

The problem in my eyes with this approach is that you have to know beforehand
which of the patterns are impossible to use in a certain encoding. Which is is
trivial if you design the file for a fixed (peferably small) number of
encodings it is in practice impossible if you do not know the encodings it
should be applied to.

so what would be the alternatives?

========================

here is my idea which most likely would need some further refinement.

suppose we have the pattern \patterns{.r\"u8stet} (which is taken from the
German hyphenation file).

suppose further that for each encoding we have defined a code point which is
not a letter, say, the position of `!' (the latter might be a bad choice i
don't know). For encodings which do encode not 256 characters we should be
able to chose a code point outside the encoding itself. Let's call this
character X

during pattern reading we then map the \add@accent command (which is what
finally is used in case of an internal representation for an accent which is
not also a composite) to

  \def\add@accent#1#2{X}

so what we get is the pattern \patterns{.rX8stet} which is an impossible
combination (especially if X lies outside the encoding range)

\DeclareTextCommand and \DeclareTextCompositeCommand would need to be handled
in a similar fashion (which would require some small changes to the internals
of nfss since at the moment \DeclareTextSymbol is internally calling
\DeclareTextCommand etc which would then not appropriate.

The downside of this approach is that for encodings which would make a large
number of patterns invalid this way we unnecessarily store spurious patterns.

On the positive side is that i can go and say

\fontencoding{LY1}\selecfont
\input german-hyphenation-patterns

and automatically get the a set of patterns suitable for LY1

the reason i bring this up is that if one extends the notion of "current
encoding" to something like "current encodings suitable for a language" then
one needs to have hyphenation patterns for all language/font combintions (at
least that would be desirable)

the technical support for this approach doesn't seem to be very difficult to
provide, but i don't know if there would be enough people willing to actually
look at the hyphenation files out there bring them into a suitable source
form. The latter would be necessary in my opinion to some extend anyway, there
are a number of such files which would result in very strangly behaving LaTeX
format if one actually adds them

frank

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