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