X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["747" "Tue" "16" "November" "1999" "09:32:49" "+0000" "Robin Fairbairns" "Robin.Fairbairns@CL.CAM.AC.UK" nil "19" "Re: babel 3.7 beta release" "^Date:" nil nil "11" nil "babel 3.7 beta release" nil nil nil] nil) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (mail.listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.5]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20977 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:32:56 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by mail.listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.6676011E@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:32:52 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 445526 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:32:34 +0100 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA18042 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:32:32 +0100 (MET) Received: from wisbech.cl.cam.ac.uk (mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.0.15]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA00549 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:32:51 +0100 (MET) Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk ([128.232.1.34] helo=cl.cam.ac.uk ident=rf) by wisbech.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.092 #1) id 11neyo-0007AG-00 for LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:32:50 +0000 Message-ID: Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:07:35 +0100." <14384.30231.698701.576525@Wincenty.nowhere.edu.pl> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:32:49 +0000 From: Robin Fairbairns Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: babel 3.7 beta release Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3413 [input encodings] > On the other hand using different encodings for a language within one > document is somewhat perverse. unusual, maybe, but not perverse. a regular requirement is the ability to create documents whose sections come from multiple sources (not something it's easy to support, mind you...). if one's original authors are writing in polish (or russian) -- indeed almost any language other than english, given the multitudinous national variants of iso 646 that still hang on in backwaters -- then one may expect > So it would be reasonable to have per > document defaults. i would agree, but i wouldn't want to lose the ability to use other than the default. which rather negates the impact of the `default' mechanism. robin