Received: from webgate.proteosys.de (mail.proteosys-ag.com [62.225.9.49]) by lucy.proteosys (8.11.0/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id f16G9lH19298 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:09:47 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f16G9ld05242 . for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:09:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C09057.39A45780" Received: from mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailserver1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.30]) by mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f16G9kM10516 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:09:46 +0100 (MET) Received: from mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.57]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08905 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:09:46 +0100 (MET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (mail.listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.5]) by mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f16G9j718678 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:09:45 +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 <11.0E67F252@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:09:40 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 488822 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:09:41 +0100 Received: from ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (mail.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.234]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA10129 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:09:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA29346 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:09:36 +0100 Received: from csc.albany.edu (sarah.albany.edu [169.226.1.103]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f16G9Zu00834 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:09:36 +0100 (MET) Received: from pluto.math.albany.edu (pluto.math.albany.edu [169.226.23.44]) by csc.albany.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00378 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:09:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from hammond@localhost) by pluto.math.albany.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21018 for LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:09:10 -0500 (EST) Return-Path: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: default inputenc/fontenc tight to language Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:09:10 +0100 Message-ID: <200102061609.LAA21018@pluto.math.albany.edu> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "William F. Hammond" Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" To: "Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L" Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3720 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09057.39A45780 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what those here think about unicode and, in particular: 1. Is its concept of character -- basically unsigned 32 bit integer -- durable for, say, the next 100 years? (As I read the discussion here, I think not.) 2. Do we think that 2^32 is a wise upper bound? (This question vanishes if we think that representing characters as integers, rather than as more complicated data structures, is inadequate.) Unicode is directly relevant to the future of LaTeX to the extent that LaTeX is going to be robust for formatting XML document types because normal document content can consist of arbitary sequences of unicode characters. XML systems are designed to make decisions only where markup occurs. It is reasonable for an XML processor writing in a typesetting language to know the markup ancestry of a character, e.g., whether it is within a math zone, but not reasonable -- unless the processor, like David Carlisle's xmltex, is a TeX thing -- for it to know that a particular character must have \ensuremath applied. I note that in GNU Emacs these days characters can have property lists. Thanks for your thoughts. -- Bill ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09057.39A45780 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: default inputenc/fontenc tight to language

Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what those here = think about
unicode and, in particular:

1.  Is its concept of character -- basically = unsigned 32 bit
    integer -- durable for, say, the = next 100 years?

    (As I read the discussion here, I = think not.)

2.  Do we think that 2^32 is a wise upper = bound?

    (This question vanishes if we think = that representing
    characters as integers, rather = than as more complicated data
    structures, is inadequate.)

Unicode is directly relevant to the future of LaTeX to = the extent that
LaTeX is going to be robust for formatting XML = document types because
normal document content can consist of arbitary = sequences of unicode
characters.  XML systems are designed to make = decisions only where
markup occurs.  It is reasonable for an XML = processor writing in a
typesetting language to know the markup ancestry of a = character, e.g.,
whether it is within a math zone, but not reasonable = -- unless the
processor, like David Carlisle's xmltex, is a TeX = thing -- for it to
know that a particular character must have = \ensuremath applied.

I note that in GNU Emacs these days characters can = have property lists.

Thanks for your thoughts.

          &nbs= p;            = ;            = -- Bill

------_=_NextPart_001_01C09057.39A45780--