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: LaTeX's internal char prepresentation (UTF8 or Unicode?)

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:25:40 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (138 lines)

Marcel,

 > > which is exactly what i mean: you have to shout from the
 > > outside. so if i get a file by mail and process it i wouldn't know
 > > what to do with it.
 >
 > If you didn't tell me anything, I would run it with the (hopefully
 > some day to be default) input encoding UTF8. If your file was clean
 > ASCII, it would work in any case. Only if you had used some limited 8
 > bit encoding you would need to tell me about the encoding explicitly.

my prediction is that for a good number of years to come you have to live with
documents being in current type of 8bit encodings. anyway, that's again the
input encoding part which I think is not that interesting. right now I don't
think anything other than

 - default ascii (one day perhaps in fact default utf8)
 - special input encoding used requires explicit mentioning in the document,
   eg via some sort of inputenc declaration

is suitable for the near future (and also in my opinion) sufficient


 > > the switch to 2e was a very valuable and sad lession in this
 > > respect.
 >
 > I am not sure what you are referring to. From my limited experience I
 > can see two problems with 2e:

my guess is your experience is related to Germany which from the outset was 2e
positive for various reasons, one of it being a strong base for NFSS1 and
International LaTeX.

i was referring to the fact that "nearly" 2e died a death like say lollipop
(which is quite a nice format but never got used); ie that people didn't even
install it and if you don't have the base then you don't get new packages or
anything.

 > - Many users weren't using the new features and running in
 > compatibility mode. This may be sad, but it has nothing to do with
 > the underlying engine, and everything to do with changes (to the
 > better) in the LaTeX user interface.

that would have been an acceptable (though not nice) start of acceptance, far
more problematical would have been people sticking with 2.09 and refusing to
use it. it took a very long time for american (and other) journals, say, to
accept 2e sources.

 > > but more importantly and that is my second point or the point i
 > > tried to make: LaTeX should "work" on TeX as a platform. so if i
 > > would build the kernel in a way that this is not possible then
 > > people would not go with LaTeX not for a long time.
 >
 > It is not for me to judge if TeX as an engine is sufficient or
 > desirable, I don't know the real issues well enough.

in many respects it is not but so far it is

 a) the most widely available one

 b) the most stable one (everywhere the same)

 c) it doesn't have the problem of maintenance (even if no bugs get fixed
    anymore)

 d) it doesn't have the problem of featurism, ie it is stable and reliable
 most or even all of the successors of TeX have been under strong development
 which is fine as such but LaTeX also requires a strong compatibility between
 different sites and that is not provided if the underlying program changes a
 lot. pdftex is a good example, in itself a success it was of no much use to
 parse source files around using anything other than the basic "don't output
 dvi output pdf" until recently where it finally got more or less
 stable. problem with pdftex now is that it lacks a suitable maintenance
 future given that Than might not be able to support it much longer.


if you look at it from the point of available successors:

 - etex is stable but the features are far too internal to make a convincing
   argument for people to switch to a version running only on that program
   we tried to get further features into etex hoping to get a version which
   would allow to produce things really selling but unfortunately that never
   got over a number of specification sessions (see project web site articles
   again http://www.latex-project.org/papers/etex-meeting-notes.pdf )

 - pdftex has a (potential) maintenance problem (and also lacks the features i
   would like to see in a successor of TeX)

 - omega is or was up to now too unstable in its features, ie far too much
   evolving to base LaTeX on it and also lacks above features to some
   extend. i guess it will get stable now (if not already being so), but it is
   a pity (though very understandable) that it mainly tried to solve one part
   of the picture.


so if there is a new latex which replaces 2e then it needs a basis fast or
else too many people will stick with 2e; then the professional side (eg the
journals) will stick 2e (if they don't even use 209:-) since they will say
there is no need for putting money or resources into updating their classes
and files; and if so even people who would like to go to a successor find that
they have nobody to exchange their files with or send them to to get published
and ...

the problem why something like the linux model/takeover can't work with
something like LaTeX is that you can't simply add or upgrade without becoming
incompatible with the rest of the world and that is a big need for LaTeX.

with linux itdoesn't matter that i run suse 6.2 (i think) on the box i'm
writing from while my old laptop has perhaps even 5.x and you might have 7.1
--- it only concerns the individual box and the need for a certain driver for
it and some goodies on the X etc. but the boxes can talk to each other without
any problems. not so with LaTeX.

 > Anyway, Frank, I just got your last mail in my inbox (need to read the
 > details more carefully), and I think we agree that it's worth
 > exploring if there would be a substantial advantage for having some
 > engine with Unicode internal reprentation.

it surely is, though i'm not convinced that the time has come, given that the
current LICR actually is as powerful (or more powerful in fact) than unicode
ever can be.

 > Anyway, I think that
 > Knuthian TeX should not be treated as a holy cow (if sound arguments

i'm not treating it as such. but i want LaTeX <whatever> to succeed. and that
means keeping a close eye on how the user base will react and how to influence
the reaction.

 > can be made), and a move to LaTeX3 which will by definition break the
 > "stability" of LaTeX may be a good point to make a move beyond TeX if
 > such a more is deemed eventually necessary.

oh yes, but it would be far easier to do so if it comes with a lot of "sexy"
items that people will jump on (whether they need it or not) and that is not
easy to provide. and you need a critical mass

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