Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.4B3CA324@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:42:08 +0100 In-Reply-To: Don Hosek's message of Mon, 28 Oct 91 15:01:00 PST <9110282304.AA08092@ufer.ZIB-Berlin.DE> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4B3CA324" 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, 29 Oct 1991 12:11:53 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Rainer Schoepf" To: Cc: Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 426 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4B3CA324 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Don writes: from \emtex\doc\english\texware.doc: |The /c option |------------- |Currently, only one tcp file is available: 850_tex.tcp. This file = converts |some characters of code page 850 into TeX commands: %%%%%%%%%%%% |^^80 -> \c{C} ^^81 -> \"u ^^82 -> \'e |^^83 -> \^a ^^84 -> \"a ^^85 -> \`a [many lines of expansion deleted, underpercenting mine] This sort of conversion is not possible by changing the xchar/xord array which assumes a 1-1 mapping of external code byte to internal code byte. Wrong again, Don! Even the original tex.web has a mapping that is one-one only on the set of printable ASCII chars. qed. Yes, but you're still stuck in the PC combatible word with your TeX file. And you're assuming that your TeX can change its mapping to the Cork-based internal codes from whatever codepage you have externally. So chances are that your colleague's emTeX file won't run with your copy of PCTeX or $\mu$-TeX or TurboTeX or AzTeX. Let alone when you try to send the file to an ASCII system like, say, a Mac or VAX or Unix box... If you're going to use the excuse that you can't reliably send an 8-bit ASCII file to an EBCDIC system to justify incorporating unnecessary incompatibilities between TeX implementations, I kind of wonder what the point of worrying about any sort of TeX consistency is. So, what's the difference to the previous situation. That means *only* that you have to go back to the ^^xx convention when you exchange files BETWEEN DIFFERENT SYSTEMS (not even when you go from a PC to an IBM RISC). Nothing wrong with that. Rainer ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4B3CA324 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable LaTeX 2.09 <Oct 91> beta-test

Don writes:

   from = \emtex\doc\english\texware.doc:

   |The /c option
   |-------------

   |Currently, only one tcp file is = available: 850_tex.tcp. This file converts
   |some characters of code page 850 into = TeX commands:
        =         =         =         =           = %%%%%%%%%%%%

   |^^80 -> = \c{C}           &n= bsp;   ^^81 -> = \"u           = ;      ^^82 -> \'e
   |^^83 -> = \^a           &nbs= p;     ^^84 -> = \"a           = ;      ^^85 -> \`a

   [many lines of expansion deleted, = underpercenting mine]

   This sort of conversion is not possible = by changing the
   xchar/xord array which assumes a 1-1 = mapping of external code
   byte to internal code byte.

Wrong again, Don! Even the original tex.web has a = mapping that is
one-one only on the set of printable ASCII chars. = qed.

   Yes, but you're still stuck in the PC = combatible word with your
   TeX file. And you're assuming that your = TeX can change its
   mapping to the Cork-based internal codes = from whatever codepage
   you have externally. So chances are that = your colleague's emTeX
   file won't run with your copy of PCTeX = or $\mu$-TeX or TurboTeX
   or AzTeX. Let alone when you try to send = the file to an ASCII
   system like, say, a Mac or VAX or Unix = box... If you're going to
   use the excuse that you can't reliably = send an 8-bit ASCII file
   to an EBCDIC system to justify = incorporating unnecessary
   incompatibilities between TeX = implementations, I kind of wonder
   what the point of worrying about any = sort of TeX consistency is.

So, what's the difference to the previous situation. = That means *only*
that you have to go back to the ^^xx convention when = you exchange
files BETWEEN DIFFERENT SYSTEMS (not even when you go = from a PC to an
IBM RISC). Nothing wrong with that.

Rainer

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4B3CA324--