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 f1C8skH14750 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:54:47 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1C8skd28400 . for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:54:46 +0100 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 f1C8siM11614 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:54:44 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C094D1.734EE580" 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 JAA16911 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:54:43 +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 f1C8shM11608 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:54:43 +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 <8.458A1407@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 9:54:36 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 487802 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:54:40 +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 JAA01992 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:54:39 +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 JAA38978 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:54:34 +0100 Received: from knatte.tninet.se (knatte.tninet.se [195.100.94.10]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id f1C8sSu14475 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:54:29 +0100 (MET) Received: (qmail 13253 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2001 09:54:19 +0100 Received: from garibaldi.tninet.se (HELO algonet.se) (195.100.94.103) by knatte.tninet.se with SMTP; 12 Feb 2001 09:54:19 +0100 Received: from [195.100.226.145] (du145-226.ppp.su-anst.tninet.se [195.100.226.145]) by garibaldi.tninet.se (BLUETAIL Mail Robustifier 2.2.1) with ESMTP id 909420.968055.981garibaldi-s2 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:54:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: <14983.2022.587938.334186@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de> References: <14982.58110.488910.461010@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <14982.45082.150652.74719@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de> <14982.51989.349221.285820@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de> <14982.52380.897443.588837@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <14982.53422.402117.63648@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de> 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: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:53:15 +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: 3838 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C094D1.734EE580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 22:45 +0100 2001/02/11, Frank Mittelbach wrote: > > Meta reasoning from the impression of TeX I get, developed as a = series > > smart, but quick features lacking true generality and depth, I = surmise that > >that's a bold statement from you, given that TeX though being more than = 20 >years old has still to find a opponent program that can produce even = equal >quality in its domain. I don't see that it is any bold in it; if one ever has tried to do something of generality with TeX (have you? :-)), it is sort of obvious. >you might argue that Don as a language designer isn't really strong but >that is >only a part of the story (though with most of your comments my feeling = is that >you think it is all that is about anything) I don't think he ever tried to design a language with great generality; = he had his scope, and as far as he could tell resulted TeX would suffice = for that scope. The scope has since changed, though. > > any attempt in developing a TeX successor by enhancing it will fail. > >possibly but not for the reasons you claim The very heart of TeX is too limited. -- Otherwise, part of the reason that it is so difficult providing a successor to TeX is poor documentation of its internals, and the sources seems to not be very accessible. So I figure that those start with enhancing TeX, just inherits its problems. Possibly, if one could first make a clone (entirely new sources but with the same specs written with more modern tools such as Bison & C++), one could get an idea of how to write a new version. Hans Aberg ------_=_NextPart_001_01C094D1.734EE580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LaTeX's internal char prepresentation (UTF8 or = Unicode?)

At 22:45 +0100 2001/02/11, Frank Mittelbach = wrote:
> > Meta reasoning from the impression of TeX I = get, developed as a series
> > smart, but quick features lacking true = generality and depth, I surmise that
>
>that's a bold statement from you, given that TeX = though being more than 20
>years old has still to find a opponent program = that can produce even equal
>quality in its domain.

I don't see that it is any bold in it; if one ever has = tried to do
something of generality with TeX (have you? :-)), it = is sort of obvious.

>you might argue that Don as a language designer = isn't really strong but
>that is
>only a part of the story (though with most of = your comments my feeling is that
>you think it is all that is about = anything)

I don't think he ever tried to design a language with = great generality; he
had his scope, and as far as he could tell resulted = TeX would suffice for
that scope.

The scope has since changed, though.

> > any attempt in developing a TeX successor by = enhancing it will fail.
>
>possibly but not for the reasons you claim

The very heart of TeX is too limited.

-- Otherwise, part of the reason that it is so = difficult providing a
successor to TeX is poor documentation of its = internals, and the sources
seems to not be very accessible. So I figure that = those start with
enhancing TeX, just inherits its problems. Possibly, = if one could first
make a clone (entirely new sources but with the same = specs written with
more modern tools such as Bison & C++), one could = get an idea of how to
write a new version.

  Hans Aberg

------_=_NextPart_001_01C094D1.734EE580--