Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.4BEC614C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:42:10 +0100 Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4BEC614C" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: the language0 flame war Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 09:10:47 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 430 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4BEC614C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > -Don Hosek writes: > > -> True, but unimportant. I know of no TeX format which loads a > -> ... > -> ... ..., I can think of no good > -> reason why US English should *not* be language 0. > -\begin{flame} > -This xchr/xord discussion is something I'd rather watch than > -participate in, but this is just b*llshit! I just hate this stupid > -Anglo-American chauvinism with respect to languages. > -\end{flame} > > I'm sorry to have inadvertently offended, but you still haven't > addressed my point. There is nothing inherently special about > \language0. I must correct my original statement in that I've > come up with one case where it would not be desirable to have US > English in language 0 and that's where someone is running TeX > with high enough memory constraints that they'd only be loading > one language, but I suspect that this is a rather unlikely > scenario. Other than this, is there really any rational reason > why US English shouldn't be language 0? It's not as if TeX always > starts up in language 0 (only when beginning with "virgin" memory > is that necessarily the case). Example 1: Suppose an office in Belgium -- a bilingual country, with Dutch and French the official languages (actually: variants of D and F) -- with no relations outside the country wants to use TeX for ordinary business letters. They need an .fmt with Dutch and French the only languages, why put in English when it is not needed? Example 2: Again, suppose that we at Elsevier want to use TeX for our business letters, which are mostly in English, and sometimes in Dutch. We will need an English-Dutch bilingual TeX. However, we do not want US-English, but `proper English' hyphenation. Why put in the unwanted hyphenation patterns of US-English when they are not needed? Anyone can think up these examples! Question from me: I still don't have the latest version of The TeX Book here. Could someone explain *in all detail* what TeX 3 does with languages, what's special/not special about \language0? For example: is it true that TeX begins in \language0 at the beginning of every new paragraph (someone told me this at a meeting of the Dutch Users Group)? Nico ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4BEC614C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable the language0 flame war

> -Don Hosek writes:
>
> -> True, but unimportant. I know of no TeX = format which loads a
> -> ...
> -> = ...           &nbs= p;            = ;          ..., I can think = of no good
> -> reason why US English should *not* be = language 0.
> -\begin{flame}
> -This xchr/xord discussion is something I'd = rather watch than
> -participate in, but this is just b*llshit! I = just hate this stupid
> -Anglo-American chauvinism with respect to = languages.
> -\end{flame}
>
> I'm sorry to have inadvertently offended, but = you still haven't
> addressed my point. There is nothing inherently = special about
> \language0. I must correct my original statement = in that I've
> come up with one case where it would not be = desirable to have US
> English in language 0 and that's where someone = is running TeX
> with high enough memory constraints that they'd = only be loading
> one language, but I suspect that this is a = rather unlikely
> scenario. Other than this, is there really any = rational reason
> why US English shouldn't be language 0? It's not = as if TeX always
> starts up in language 0 (only when beginning = with "virgin" memory
> is that necessarily the case).

Example 1: Suppose an office in Belgium -- a bilingual = country, with
Dutch and French the official languages (actually: = variants of D and F)
-- with no relations outside the country wants to use = TeX for ordinary
business letters. They need an .fmt with Dutch and = French the only
languages, why put in English when it is not = needed?

Example 2: Again, suppose that we at Elsevier want to = use TeX for our
business letters, which are mostly in English, and = sometimes in Dutch.
We will need an English-Dutch bilingual TeX. However, = we do not want
US-English, but `proper English' hyphenation. Why put = in the unwanted
hyphenation patterns of US-English when they are not = needed?

Anyone can think up these examples!


Question from me: I still don't have the latest = version of The TeX Book
here. Could someone explain *in all detail* what TeX = 3 does with
languages, what's special/not special about = \language0? For example: is
it true that TeX begins in \language0 at the = beginning of every new
paragraph (someone told me this at a meeting of the = Dutch Users Group)?

Nico

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4BEC614C--