MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C095FC.084DFD80"
In-Reply-To:  <200102131350.IAA05912@hilbert.math.albany.edu>
References: <200102131350.IAA05912@hilbert.math.albany.edu>
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject:      Re: LaTeX's internal char prepresentation (UTF8 or Unicode?)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:20:33 +0100
Message-ID:  <14985.38673.90940.10236@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de>
From: "Frank Mittelbach" <frank.mittelbach@LATEX-PROJECT.ORG>
Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: "Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L" <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Status: R

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C095FC.084DFD80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

William F. Hammond writes:

 > The question lingers, however, as to whether we view xml as off topic
 > here.  On the one hand, xmltex is something that runs through LaTeX,
 > and, on the other hand, if xml is a presence, it changes the package
 > writing scene inasmuch as some of the things that people get from
 > packages can be provided (sometimes better) before regular LaTeX
 > action begins.

I don't think that xml is off topic at all. personally what I'm =
concerned with
is providing mechanism and concepts that can be used to achieve good
typography. i certainly agree that something as xml can handle certain =
things
better than clumsy attempts in the past doing it in (La)TeX.

but it doesn't go all the way and I guess something like LaTeX still has =
a
place in the game; so far I don't quite believe in XSL engines that =
drive a
low-level formatter which is not capable of properly quering its =
generated
typography data (something TeX(variant) systems can).

frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C095FC.084DFD80
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>     Re: LaTeX's internal char prepresentation (UTF8 or =
Unicode?)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>William F. Hammond writes:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;&gt; The question lingers, however, as to =
whether we view xml as off topic</FONT>

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;&gt; here.&nbsp; On the one hand, xmltex is =
something that runs through LaTeX,</FONT>

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;&gt; and, on the other hand, if xml is a =
presence, it changes the package</FONT>

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;&gt; writing scene inasmuch as some of the =
things that people get from</FONT>

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;&gt; packages can be provided (sometimes =
better) before regular LaTeX</FONT>

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;&gt; action begins.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I don't think that xml is off topic at all. personally =
what I'm concerned with</FONT>

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>is providing mechanism and concepts that can be used =
to achieve good</FONT>

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>typography. i certainly agree that something as xml =
can handle certain things</FONT>

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>better than clumsy attempts in the past doing it in =
(La)TeX.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>but it doesn't go all the way and I guess something =
like LaTeX still has a</FONT>

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>place in the game; so far I don't quite believe in =
XSL engines that drive a</FONT>

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>low-level formatter which is not capable of properly =
quering its generated</FONT>

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>typography data (something TeX(variant) systems =
can).</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>frank</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C095FC.084DFD80--