Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]> writes: > b) there are at least two positions in the TeX world concerning >"language". one group thinks that there is something like typography >for language "foo" and therefore there has to be a set macros that >support typsetting documents in "foo". the other group takes more the >approach that there isn't such a thing but and therefore saying "this >is is the German way to typeset \today is utter nonsense" and >therefore everybody better defines \today as she damn please. My >position is somewhat between those groups... > * the use of hyphenation depends on the language (probably :-) --- > just as an aside: in TeX the \patterns to use do not depend on the > language but rather on a "language/font-encoding" pair which is an > unfortunate fact of life not yet really taken care of I will illustrate how complex these issues can be, by taking the example of Swedish hypenation: Twenty years ago, I was taught that the one and only rule in Swedish hyphenation was that at least one consonant should follow on to the next line. Now, this rule has been augmented by a rule closer the US practise, namely, hyphenating words in syllables according to the words (Swedish) semantics. Sure, there is a body issuing Swedish hyphenation standards, as the Swedes are even more formal than the Germans, but the problem is that today the society moves too fast, so, instead of issuing rules that people might follow, one, in effect, issues rule that describe the general practise, as one does in the US. So here, we have different, conflicting rules, that are resolved by some kind of pragmatics, which also evolve in time. (Fortunately, I do not write documents in Swedish, so I do not have to worry about this.) This complexity can also be illustrated by the question of date formats: Suppose I write letters to people in the UK here from Sweden; which date format should use in that letter? There is clearly no Swedish standard for English date formats. I would probably stick to the US date format for occasional correspondence, as I have spent several years in the US, and is used to that format. But suppose I do not want to confuse the recipient of that letter; then I should use the UK date format. This also affects the question of style: I am probably better off profiling me as a European to the people in the US, without confusing them, and similarly, profiling me as somebody using the US style, to the people in the UK, without confusing them. So, even if my intent is following some conventions and standards, I end up with the need of combining style elements from different standards. Therefore, I think that a discussion that centers around a few standard formats only is not very helpful. Several of the standard formats, like the Duden German grammatical rules I think, were created by collecting some general practise rules, and simply, rather brutally, make a selection from that. This way, one can create beautiful standards, but the problem is that today, our world is too complex for this to work. Hans Aberg