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 f1DHLfH27244 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:21:41 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1DHLed02156 . for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:21:41 +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 f1DHLe722040 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:21:40 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C095E1.6DE0C080" 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 SAA03205 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:21:39 +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 f1DHLd722036 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:21:39 +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 <7.41300FD8@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:21:32 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 488713 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:21:35 +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 SAA06674 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:21:34 +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 SAA57898 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:21:35 +0100 Received: from naf1.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de (naf1.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.161.197]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1DHLYg01197 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:21:34 +0100 (MET) Received: from na13.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de (na13 [134.2.161.180]) by naf1.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA24085 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:21:33 +0100 (MET) Received: (from oliver@localhost) by na13.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id SAA01365; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:21:33 +0100 (MET) In-Reply-To: <200102131655.QAA05656@penguin.nag.co.uk> References: <200102131655.QAA05656@penguin.nag.co.uk> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.88 under Emacs 20.7.2 X-Authentication-Warning: na13.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de: oliver set sender to oliver@na13 using -f Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Multilingual Encodings Summary Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:21:33 +0100 Message-ID: <14985.27933.205182.551235@gargle.gargle.HOWL> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Marcel Oliver" 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: 3884 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C095E1.6DE0C080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David, some question for clarification: David Carlisle writes: > If latex switched to use omega (only) then > a) this might require omega to be more stable than omega users would > wish, ie it might prematurely limit addition of new features. - Is the envisioned time frame for Omega to stabilize really longer than a realistic time frame for LaTeX3 to be completed? > b) it would cut out people using tex systems that don't include = omega. > You might say they should all switch to web2c tex, but that's like > saying that everyone should use emacs on linux. Clearly it's true, = but > it doesn't happen that way. - What are the platforms that can compile TeX but cannot compile Omega? > c) special case of (b) it would (at present, I think) cut out = pdflatex. - How much of an advantage is pdftex compared to creating pdf via DVI? I have only done the latter without any problems, but of course it involves more file format conversions. > d) It would require reasonably major surgery to LaTeX internals. It Now it's getting interesting... - Is it basically clear to the LaTeX experts what needs to be done, or will major conceptual work be necessary? - How do such changes compare with what is being done anyway for LaTeX3? - Will things get harder or easier with Omega? > would be possible to make documents and packages using "documented > interfaces" still work with a new internal character handling, but > ctan will reveal a lot of heavily used packages that for good (or = bad) > reasons don't use documented interfaces, but just redefine arbitrary > macros. (Often because there isn't a documented interface). > A lot of these would break. Again, it may be good to assess the extent of potential damage. The switch to 2e has broken lots of stuff, but in the long run it was the right thing to do. So one should make a strong case why it should be otherwise now. (And maybe some packages actually deserve to die...) > So in short to medium term it seems there have to be two versions > latex/omega and latex/tex. How compatible they can be as latex/omega > uses more omega features I am not sure. This is a situation we should REALLY avoid! --M. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C095E1.6DE0C080 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Multilingual Encodings Summary

David, some question for clarification:

David Carlisle writes:
 > If latex switched to use omega (only) = then
 > a) this might require omega to be more = stable than omega users would
 > wish, ie it might prematurely limit = addition of new features.

- Is the envisioned time frame for Omega to stabilize = really longer than
  a realistic time frame for LaTeX3 to be = completed?

 > b) it would cut out people using tex = systems that don't include omega.
 > You might say they should all switch to = web2c tex, but that's like
 > saying that everyone should use emacs on = linux. Clearly it's true, but
 > it doesn't happen that way.

- What are the platforms that can compile TeX but = cannot compile
  Omega?

 > c) special case of (b) it would (at = present, I think) cut out pdflatex.

- How much of an advantage is pdftex compared to = creating pdf via DVI?
  I have only done the latter without any = problems, but of course it
  involves more file format conversions.

 > d) It would require reasonably major = surgery to LaTeX internals. It

Now it's getting interesting...

- Is it basically clear to the LaTeX experts what = needs to be done, or
  will major conceptual work be = necessary?

- How do such changes compare with what is being done = anyway for
  LaTeX3?

- Will things get harder or easier with Omega?

 > would be possible to make documents and = packages using "documented
 > interfaces" still work with a new = internal character handling, but
 > ctan will reveal a lot of heavily used = packages that for good (or bad)
 > reasons don't use documented interfaces, = but just redefine arbitrary
 > macros. (Often because there isn't a = documented interface).
 > A lot of these would break.

Again, it may be good to assess the extent of = potential damage.  The
switch to 2e has broken lots of stuff, but in the = long run it was the
right thing to do.  So one should make a strong = case why it should be
otherwise now.  (And maybe some packages = actually deserve to die...)

 > So in short to medium term it seems there = have to be two versions
 > latex/omega and latex/tex. How compatible = they can be as latex/omega
 > uses more omega features I am not = sure.

This is a situation we should REALLY avoid!

--M.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C095E1.6DE0C080--