At 16:55 +0000 2001/02/13, David Carlisle wrote: >But I think the main problem is that it doesn't really make sense to >use unicode internally in standard TeX (which is a 7bit system >pretending to be 8bit). > >If latex switched to use omega (only) then >a) this might require omega to be more stable than omega users would >wish, ie it might prematurely limit addition of new features. >b) it would cut out people using tex systems that don't include omega. >You might say they should all switch to web2c tex, but that's like >saying that everyone should use emacs on linux. Clearly it's true, but >it doesn't happen that way. ... I think what is needed is something similar to what happened to Haskell: Haskell was developed with lots of experimental features until people complained that it was not possible to write a useful book using Haskell (that is, with code in it :-)), because the language probably had changed until the time the book was published. So as a consequence to that, there was a standardization which eventually resulted in Haskell 98, which is a language which does not have all those latest experimental features, but a stable core which people know will never change. Similarly, these problems discussed here seem to be in the need of a successor to TeX, but none of the current contenders seem to suffice. So one way would be to agree on a more limited TeX successor which will not need to change in the future. Hans Aberg