LaTeX 2.09 <Oct 91> beta-test

Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.49ADC70C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:42:06 +0100 In-Reply-To: "Don Hosek"'s message of 22 Oct 91 17:58:04+0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.49ADC70C" Organization: Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum fuer Informationstechnik Berlin X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Return-Path: x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: LaTeX 2.09 beta-test Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 18:11:35 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Rainer Schoepf" To: Cc: Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 413 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.49ADC70C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Don Hosek" writes: Regarding loading additional hyphenation patterns: don't change hyphen.tex--not even to rename it. Instead, just load in a file which loads all your extra patterns after TeX has completed its basic loads. This file could look something like: Unfortunately, this works only if your base language (i.e. language #0) is US english. Since \patterns are cumulative in TeX 3, you have no chance to change this afterwards. Now as regards modifying TeX to handle various different encodings, let me just say NO, DON'T DO IT! The sort of change which occurs in emTeX makes it non-TeX. I challenge that, on the simple grounds that you have to do it for ANY character set. So what is the difference between doing it for one of the EBCDIC encodings to doing it for the Cork table? (Incidentally, probably the most thought-out extension of this sort is the new mlTeX with its \charsubdef). Not true, since MLTeX adds a new primitive, and hence a new feature. Modifying xchar/xord so that say, the PC e-acute maps internally to the Cork e-acute causes the difficulty that TeX files created under this assumption are non-portable. But they are non-portable anyway, even if you make these characters active, so what? The purpose of xchar/xord was not for this sort of remapping, but rather to handle the differences between ASCII and EBCDIC. The Cork table is just another character set. Again, what's the difference? The best pure TeX way to handle code pages is to make chars over 127 active, but as was mentioned this disallows their use in cs names. NONONO!!! Remember that we are in Europe where character sets have more than 127 characters. ASCII is simply out of date for us; and EBCDIC did never work anyway (as our problems with various EARN gateways show). Rainer ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.49ADC70C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable LaTeX 2.09 <Oct 91> beta-test

"Don Hosek" = <DHOSEK@HMCVAX.CLAREMONT.edu> writes:

   Regarding loading additional hyphenation = patterns: don't change
   hyphen.tex--not even to rename it. = Instead, just load in a file
   which loads all your extra patterns = after TeX has completed its
   basic loads. This file could look = something like:

Unfortunately, this works only if your base language = (i.e. language
#0) is US english. Since \patterns are cumulative in = TeX 3, you have
no chance to change this afterwards.

   Now as regards modifying TeX to handle = various different
   encodings, let me just say NO, DON'T DO = IT! The sort of change
   which occurs in emTeX makes it = non-TeX.

I challenge that, on the simple grounds that you have = to do it for ANY
character set. So what is the difference between = doing it for one of
the EBCDIC encodings to doing it for the Cork = table?

          &nbs= p;            = ;            =         (Incidentally, = probably
   the most thought-out extension of this = sort is the new mlTeX with
   its \charsubdef).

Not true, since MLTeX adds a new primitive, and hence = a new feature.

          &nbs= p;          Modifying = xchar/xord so that say, the PC
   e-acute maps internally to the Cork = e-acute causes the difficulty
   that TeX files created under this = assumption are non-portable.

But they are non-portable anyway, even if you make = these characters
active, so what?

The purpose of xchar/xord was not for = this sort of remapping, but
rather to handle the differences between = ASCII and EBCDIC.

The Cork table is just another character set. Again, = what's the
difference?

          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp; The
   best pure TeX way to handle code pages = is to make chars over 127
   active, but as was mentioned this = disallows their use in cs
   names.

NONONO!!! Remember that we are in Europe where = character sets have
more than 127 characters. ASCII is simply out of date = for us; and
EBCDIC did never work anyway (as our problems with = various EARN
gateways show).

Rainer

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.49ADC70C--