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 f1BKY2H12105 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:34:03 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1BKY2d26240 . for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:34:02 +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 f1BKY1725636 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:34:02 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C09469.F89EAF80" Received: from mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.56]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23126 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:34:01 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (mail.listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.5]) by mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1BKY1M13925 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:34:01 +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 <0.CC09AC64@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:33:54 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 487778 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:33:58 +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 VAA26602 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:33:57 +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 VAA43018 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:33:57 +0100 Received: from musse.tninet.se (musse.tninet.se [195.100.94.12]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id f1BKXuu20724 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:33:56 +0100 (MET) Received: (qmail 9269 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2001 21:33:55 +0100 Received: from garibaldi.tninet.se (HELO algonet.se) (195.100.94.103) by musse.tninet.se with SMTP; 11 Feb 2001 21:33:55 +0100 Received: from [195.100.226.136] (du136-226.ppp.su-anst.tninet.se [195.100.226.136]) by garibaldi.tninet.se (BLUETAIL Mail Robustifier 2.2.1) with ESMTP id 311513.923633.981garibaldi-s2 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:33:53 +0100 In-Reply-To: <14982.45082.150652.74719@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de> References: <14980.23750.628032.305093@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <200102091445.JAA00482@plmsc.psu.edu> <200102091643.RAA23818@mozart.ujf-grenoble.Fr> <14980.23750.628032.305093@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Return-Path: X-Sender: haberg@pop.matematik.su.se Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: LaTeX's internal char prepresentation (UTF8 or Unicode?) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:29:56 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Hans Aberg" 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: 3815 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09469.F89EAF80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 16:30 +0100 2001/02/11, Frank Mittelbach wrote: > wouldn't it be better if the internal LaTeX representation would be = Unicode > in one or the other flavor? > >in other words, instead of using \"a as the representation for umlaut-a = use >something like > > \unicode{00e4} >or \uc00e4 % (as a command) >or \utfviii{...} ... > - however, not clear is that the resulting names are easier to read, = eg > \unicode{00e4} viz \"a. ... > - the current latex internal representation is richer than unicode for = good > or worse, eg \" is defined individually as representation for = accenting the > next char, which means that anything = \" is > automatically also a member of it, eg \"g. ... >comments? There is this variation that one defines \u00e4 commands for Unicode compatibility. Then in some environment, one defines " as a letter, with \let\"a=3D\u00E4 etc., and in other environments \" is the usual control sequence. Thus, if one is in the environment where " is a letter, if some = combination \x does not work, one will know that the Unicode version is not = available, and one has to invoke another environment to handle that. Hans Aberg ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09469.F89EAF80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LaTeX's internal char prepresentation (UTF8 or = Unicode?)

At 16:30 +0100 2001/02/11, Frank Mittelbach = wrote:
> wouldn't it be better if the internal LaTeX = representation would be Unicode
> in one or the other flavor?
>
>in other words, instead of using \"a as the = representation for umlaut-a use
>something like
>
>   \unicode{00e4}
>or = \uc00e4        % (as a = command)
>or \utfviii{...}
...
> - however, not clear is that the resulting names = are easier to read, eg
>   \unicode{00e4} viz \"a.
...
> - the current latex internal representation is = richer than unicode for good
>   or worse, eg \" is defined = individually as representation for accenting the
>   next char, which means that anything = \"<base-char-in-the-internal-reps> is
>   automatically also a member of it, = eg \"g.
...
>comments?

There is this variation that one defines \u00e4 = commands for Unicode
compatibility. Then in some environment, one defines = " as a letter, with
  \let\"a=3D\u00E4
etc., and in other environments \" is the usual = control sequence.

Thus, if one is in the environment where " is a = letter, if some combination
\x does not work, one will know that the Unicode = version is not available,
and one has to invoke another environment to handle = that.

  Hans Aberg

------_=_NextPart_001_01C09469.F89EAF80--