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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  February 2001

LATEX-L February 2001

Subject:

Re: inputenc text (and/or math)

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:20:07 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (184 lines)

Back to Marcel's original mail:

 > - I believe the only reasonable default _input encoding_ is UTF8.
 >   Being a superset of ASCII while covering all of unicode, it seems
 >   the ideal long-time solution to all input-encoding related problems.
 >   UTF8 is also becoming rather well supported by editors and other
 >   applications.

i can agree to seeing it (perhaps) becoming a default input encoding one day;
it certainly has some appealing features.

 > - In particular, defaulting to any other 8-bit input encoding in
 >   LaTeX2e should be avoided at all cost because it would really mess
 >   up the upgrade path to UTF8 later.  (As far as I understand, the

no problem for me as i would like to keep the default input encoding "ASCII"
for the moment

 >   proposed default of \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} does not default any
 >   8bit input encoding.  Is this correct?)

T1 is a font encoding and irrelevant with respect to input encodings, unless
you are Thierry and misuse the fact that some of the font positions fit with
some 8bit input encoding positions in your code page on your machine so that
you can pass them right through :-)


 > - A regular user should never have to specify the _font encoding_.

that would be the ideal, but unfortunately we are currently far from it.
which is what we really should talk about (how to get there)


 >   There should only be language environments (as provided by babel)
 >   and font packages (e.g. times, palatino).  This means:
 >
 >   * Babel (or something providing equivalent functionality---I
 >     strongly believe that it should become part core LaTeX3) must be

not Babel (though Babel is core of 2e as it is supported by a core team
member) since babel is the trying to support all kind of legacy things, which
is what it should in the current situation but which makes it unsuitable to be
fully make it unchanged into the kernel of a 2e successor.

otherwise yes.

 >     endowed with a default set of fonts for all languages it supports.

with some sort of multiple encoding concept like the one outlined in my
handwaving implementation, this might in fact be possible

 >     Some language environment defaults could be marked experimental,
 >     meaning that associated fonts and TFMs may change once better
 >     quality free fonts become available, but all languages must work
 >     "out of the box".

do i hear a volunteer crying out I want to help?


 >     One the other hand, languages like german for
 >     which the EC fonts are well accepted (?), could be frozen straigt
 >     away.

Not really. but anyway. if you want to hear a provocative statement (to get
some more mail tonight):

  are we sure we want to stay with T1?

I mean, don't we know by now that a number of ideas we had when we came up
with T1 (ie the Cork encoding) are full of flaws? (yes I was one of the guys
being part of the group of people deciding on it, so yes i can blame myself
:-)

should it perhaps be LY1 suitably renamed (or something similar)?


 >   * The language environment chooses the default font encoding unless
 >     a font package is explicitly loaded.  There may be more than one

what is that supposed to mean? (the unless part)

 >     language environment per language if different typographical
 >     esthetics need to be satisfied.

perhaps to the second part, i guess i would think this should be modelled
differently but perhaps we are thinking of the same expressing it differently

 >   * Babel must hook into the currently active font package.  If a
 >     language environment is selected, the font package must be called
 >     to set itself up.  In other words, every font package must make a
 >     decision about encoding as a function of the language selected.

i guess that is impractical.

 a) it would mean that each such font package would need to know about any
language ever being added to the language support of LaTeX or worse about
every language environemt as you called it above. otherwise you would end up
with a very complex set of defaults which are 99% of the time used anyway and
probably in 50% not suitable.

 b) it would be absolutely near to impossible to change the behaviour of the
system as everything is happening at different levels.

 c) finally i think it is putting up the sattle from the back (in case that is
a phrase that translates :-). i mean a font package is first of all a font
package and as such should provide fonts. it is up to the language support
/language environment to decide which of those fonts in what way it is
interested to use, not the other way around.



 >     If the language is unknown to the font package, a warning or an
 >     error must be issued.  (I am sure the set of supported
 >     language-font pairs will grow quickly if a good mechanism for
 >     soliciting contributions is implemented.)

probably as fast as the support for varioref strings over the years.

 >   * Maybe one can introduce commands like
 >       \uselanguage{spanish}
 >       \usefont{times}
 >     and autoload the necessary packages, to make clear that these
 >     attributes function orthogonally to each other and to "ordinary"
 >     packages.

ahh, do they? then why all the discussion above and before?

they are orthogonal right now and that is something some people think should
at least be customizable.


 > - Is there really a need for breaking the distinction of math mode
 >   vs. non-math mode?

guess there are at least two people on the list which should have some saying
here (Vladimir and Apostolos) as both of them have written support for
removing the distinction and would like to see it go officially.


 >   As far as Greek letters go, the most common one
 >   is $\mu$ in units.

in German or English texts you mean? :-)

perhaps that is slightly different in Greek texts? perhaps? :-)

 >   This raises the question if one should not
 >   provide standard markup for units anyway (some journal packages are
 >   doing it---there are also spacing issues involved that warrant
 >   special treatment), for example as a "tools" package in the standard
 >   LaTeX distribution.

that is something which we all thought being useful but never came around
doing. but just providing standard names would be beneficial already.


 > - For special needs, such as easy typing of cyrillic math in 7bit
 >   ASCII one could provide special input encodings.

yes, that would be my line too, except for:

 >   In full unicode
 >   this shouldn't be a problem, should it?

since i don't see what it has to do with the line before.


 > I am aware that some of these demands cannot really be met within
 > Knuthian TeX, but it seems LaTeX3 is prepared to eventually go beyond
 > TeX.  So it may be useful to define a minimal set of required
 > extensions/changes, as this issue could be a major roadblock to
 > enlarging the developer base.  For example, is there much motivation
 > for anybody to clean up the hyphenation mess before a clean long-term
 > solution (not just a work-around) is agreed on?

i think i started from that end at tome point in the afternoon (so better not
say anything contradicting myself :-)

 > Just some ideas,

quite important ones i would say

good night
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