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 f18CuKH30404 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:56:20 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f18CuKd13300 . for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:56:20 +0100 Received: from mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailserver1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.30]) by mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f18CuJ702799 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:56:19 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C091CE.88283200" 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 NAA04025 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:56:18 +0100 (MET) 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 f18CuI702791 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:56:18 +0100 (MET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by mail.listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <3.5C54B117@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:56:12 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 488202 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:56:15 +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 NAA18122 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:56:14 +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 NAA45346 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:56:14 +0100 Received: from server-2.tower-4.starlabs.net (mail.london-1.starlabs.net [212.125.75.12]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id f18CuDu00495 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:56:13 +0100 (MET) Received: (qmail 6307 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 12:53:44 -0000 Received: from nagmx1e.nag.co.uk (HELO nag.co.uk) (62.232.54.130) by server-2.tower-4.starlabs.net with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 12:53:44 -0000 Received: from penguin.nag.co.uk (IDENT:root@penguin.nag.co.uk [192.156.217.14]) by nag.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA16543 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:56:07 GMT Received: by penguin.nag.co.uk (8.9.3) id MAA15978; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:54:45 GMT In-Reply-To: <14978.37829.161859.757014@mira.idris.fr> (gaulle@IDRIS.FR) References: <14978.37829.161859.757014@mira.idris.fr> Return-Path: X-VirusChecked: Checked Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: default inputenc/fontenc tight to language Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:54:45 +0100 Message-ID: <200102081254.MAA15978@penguin.nag.co.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "David Carlisle" 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: 3751 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C091CE.88283200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Yes mltex is quite appropriate I wasn't criticising, just checking that I understood you correctly. > for a default format for French as well > as for all european languages and produced glyphs a far better... "better" than what? Couldn't one produce a VF file that produced identical results to mltex's positioning of the accents? > i don't speak about any virtual font which use T1 encoding, obviously. Yes I realise that you were not using VF fonts, but isn't it the case that the compounds that can be made from the cm fonts using mltex commands are essentially the same as those that are available in VF. Both are just different ways of using snippets of dvi to combing the base character and the accent, and make the whole thing a single character as far as TeXs hyphenation tables are concerned. I don't think that you'll get universal agreement about > Since Web2c is a standard, the --mltex option is standard too. while it's reasonable to ask all TeX implementors to implement Knuth specified features like VF support (I could mention some guilty parties at this point:-) I don't think it reasonable to suggest that they "should" implement features just because they happen to be implemented in web2c even if that is by far the most commonly used tex. By choosing to use access 8bit characters just assuming 8bit tfms rather than using mltex primitives latex is far more portable across a range of tex implementations. Even implementations that support neither VF nor mltex still work so long as they provide the fonts in T1 encoding by some method or other. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet = delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information = visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp ------_=_NextPart_001_01C091CE.88283200 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: default inputenc/fontenc tight to language

> Yes mltex is quite appropriate

I wasn't criticising, just checking that I understood = you correctly.


> for a default format for French as well
> as for all european languages and produced = glyphs a far better...
"better" than what? Couldn't one produce a = VF file that produced
identical results to mltex's positioning of the = accents?

> i don't speak about any virtual font which use T1 = encoding, obviously.

Yes I realise that you were not using VF fonts, but = isn't it the case
that the compounds that can be made from the cm fonts = using mltex
commands are essentially the same as those that are = available in VF.
Both are just different ways of using snippets of dvi = to combing the
base character and the accent, and make the whole = thing a single
character as far as TeXs hyphenation tables are = concerned.

I don't think that you'll get universal agreement = about

>  Since Web2c is a standard, the --mltex = option is standard too.

while it's reasonable to ask all TeX implementors to = implement Knuth
specified features like VF support (I could mention = some guilty parties
at this point:-) I don't think it reasonable to = suggest that they
"should" implement features just because = they happen to be implemented
in web2c even if that is by far the most commonly = used tex.

By choosing to use access 8bit characters just = assuming 8bit tfms
rather than using mltex primitives latex is far more = portable across
a range of tex implementations. Even implementations = that support
neither VF nor mltex still work so long as they = provide the fonts
in T1 encoding by some method or other.

David


________________________________________________________________= _____
This message has been checked for all known viruses = by Star Internet delivered
through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For = further information visit
http://www.star.net.uk/stats.as= p

------_=_NextPart_001_01C091CE.88283200--