Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.4C5D777C@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_01C19443.4C5D777C" 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]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 x-to: LATEX-L%DHDURZ1.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: the language0 flame war Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 17:11:00 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Don Hosek" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 437 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4C5D777C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Regarding Nico's examples... the French/Dutch example is almost compelling, but I have yet to encounter a site where they don't try and typeset at least one piece of TeX documentation from elsewhere and good or bad, the bulk of this is in English. As for the Dutch/UK English example, it's a little more reasonable although as far as I know UK English patterns aren't available yet (anyone care to correct me on this?) Loading an unused language does not particularly lead to a noticable performance degradation. I think it amounts to less than 1K of extra storage for fmt files (unless the language is German which has the largest pattern set to date) and an almost negligible amount of time in loading the fmt file. As an aside, do non-UK people really find it more logical for hyphenation of English to be etymologically based rather than syllabic as it is in all (most?) other hyphenations? Am I misremembering the basis of UK hyphenation? Is preference of UK hyphenation by continentals based on that they are more familiar with it or is it just a fun way to get back at the English linguistic hegemony? -dh (btw, my experience has been that any attempt to define "this is what our users use TeX for" always ends up to restrictive. Two months after putting TeX on a system for multilanguage document printing, someone started typesetting sheet music.) ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4C5D777C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: the language0 flame war

Regarding Nico's examples... the French/Dutch example = is almost
compelling, but I have yet to encounter a site where = they don't
try and typeset at least one piece of TeX = documentation from
elsewhere and good or bad, the bulk of this is in = English.

As for the Dutch/UK English example, it's a little = more
reasonable although as far as I know UK English = patterns aren't
available yet (anyone care to correct me on = this?)

Loading an unused language does not particularly lead = to a
noticable performance degradation. I think it amounts = to less
than 1K of extra storage for fmt files (unless the = language is
German which has the largest pattern set to date) and = an almost
negligible amount of time in loading the fmt = file.

As an aside, do non-UK people really find it more = logical for
hyphenation of English to be etymologically based = rather than
syllabic as it is in all (most?) other hyphenations? = Am I
misremembering the basis of UK hyphenation? Is = preference of UK
hyphenation by continentals based on that they are = more familiar
with it or is it just a fun way to get back at the = English
linguistic hegemony?

-dh

(btw, my experience has been that any attempt to = define "this is
what our users use TeX for" always ends up to = restrictive. Two
months after putting TeX on a system for = multilanguage document
printing, someone started typesetting sheet = music.)

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4C5D777C--