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  June 1997

LATEX-L June 1997

Subject:

Re: Multilingual TeX --- and a successor to TeX

From:

Werner Lemberg <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 15 Jun 1997 23:32:32 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (114 lines)

On Mon, 16 Jun 1997, Vladimir Volovich wrote:

> > My goal is to extend this---there are
> > so many language specific solutions which can't be made more general (e.g.
> > Japanese TeX). I don't like this, and I will always try to find a
> > multilingual solution. For example, you can embed Babel seamlessly into
> > the CJK package (provided you have only 7bit input encoding for non-CJK
> > languages: this will be done by the Mule-CJK interface).
>
> I did not see MULE yet (I have only xemacs-19.14).

AFAIK the latest version of xemacs has Mule built in. You can also get the
(original) GNU emacs 20 beta versions from
etlport.etl.go.jp/pub/mule/.notready or a mirror site (e.g.
ftp.lrz-muenchen.de/pub/culture/east-asia) which have also Mule.

> > > Moreover, do the _one_ default lccode+uccode settings conform to _all_
> > > languages (which are already TeXized)?
> >
> > Of course not. But it is better to try to follow this standard if
> > possible. And it *is* possible for Russian to use these settings.
>
> Well, I agree. But
>  * Until new T2-based LH fonts will not be widely available,
>    LCY will be the main encoding.

Sigh. Using the old encodings will always be provisional.  Of course, you
have a vital interest that Russian works, but I want to see a general
solution as soon as possible to avoid (presumably already existing)
de-facto standards.

>  * Again, when we will use T2-based fonts, we'll have to have
>    russian letters to be active chars (to translate from input encoding
>    into TeX's internal encoding---T2), and this has some disadvantages.

You can't get all :-)

>  * Because of `strange' (non-monomorphic ;-)) settings of lccode and uccode values for
>    characters "19, "1a, "9d and "9e in T1 encoding (this fact is mentioned in
>    T2 home page), these positions will not probably used in T2 encoding :-(
>    May be, it would possible to change the lccode and uccode values for these
>    characters in T1?

T1 does not define any lccode or uccode values. This does the latex team
in the latex core.  We should ask them what they think about that.

-> mixing Turkish and English within T1 in the same paragraph seems
impossible to me (due to the dotted and undotted I and i). One language
will always lose the battle on hyphenation.

> > > 2) use TeX Code Pages (TCP). This has advantage because it is universal,
> > >    and lets us preserve catcodes of translated characters.
> > >    But TCP are not supported by all TeX implementations.
> >
> > only emTeX, AFAIK. Non-portable.
>
> And is e-TeX or Omega having in plans to implement this?
> Why other TeX implementation did not implemented this? It seems to
> be not too hard. :-(

Do it! Contribute a change file to web2c! Omega does not need this---it
uses a completely different approach: it use so-called Omega Translation
Processes (OTPs) which are final automata to translate input encodings,
apply correct casification etc.

> > >    * letters are now `not letters' -- so it becomes impossible
> > >      to define and use macroses with names consisting of letters of this language.
> >
> > this is bad anyway, since TeX does not have a mechanism for separating
> > control characters from normal TeX (Omega can do this...)
>
> Could you explain what you mean?
> I mean that when russian letters have the same input encoding and internal TeX incoding
> (the case of LCY), then these characters will have catcodes equal to 11 (letter).
> So it will be possible to use macroses with russian names.
> It is impossible if russian characters are active.

Again, think of multilingualism! Your approach will not work if one input
encoding is not sufficient. Using only ASCII seems to be the best
compromise.

> > Have you ever seen a log file of my CJK package for Chinese? :-)
>
> No. The only thing from CJK package I tried to play with, was a ttf2pk package,
> which faied to work on my computer. ;-(

Failed? I assume that you've tried to use non-CJK fonts... This will work
soon after I've changed the font engine to FreeType. Expect something in
the next few months (I hope that I can show something at TUG 97).

> I can explain, why log files become unreadable.
> To be readable, the encoding of russian characters in log files
> must be the same as the input encoding (8 bit!).
> But when TeX reads russian character (with code >= 0x80) in some
> external encoding (say, koi-8) and translates this character to
> the corresponding place in T2 table (therefore the character should be active),
> then all russian letters which will go to log files (and to the screen)
> in case of TeX errors, will have TeX internal encoding (T2), but *not*
> the external encoding (koi-8). Am I right?
> So, the log (and the screen) will be unreadable.

You are absolutely right. Log messages will always be cryptic :-)

> > > BTW, do you have the new alpha version of LH fonts (with T2 encoding)?
> >
> > Oh! This is good news! Where can I get them?
>
> They are not yet widely available. I hope that I'll get them soon,
> and I'll inform you about this.

Thanks in advance.


    Werner

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