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 f1DKtjH28204 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:55:45 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1DKtid02920 . for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:55:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C095FF.557F9E80" 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 f1DKthM25119 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:55:44 +0100 (MET) 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 VAA17324 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:55:43 +0100 (MET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 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 f1DKth708361 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:55:43 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by mail.listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <5.28BA2E95@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:55:36 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 489018 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:55:34 +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 VAA10306 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:55:33 +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 VAA03924 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:55:34 +0100 Received: from Sina.sharif.ac.ir (sina.Sharif.AC.IR [194.225.40.9]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1DKtVg21696 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:55:32 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (roozbeh@localhost) by Sina.sharif.ac.ir (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA14297 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:25:28 +0330 In-Reply-To: <200102131829.SAA06291@penguin.nag.co.uk> Return-Path: X-Sender: roozbeh@Sina.sharif.ac.ir Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Multilingual Encodings Summary Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:55:28 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Roozbeh Pournader" 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: 3900 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C095FF.557F9E80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, David Carlisle wrote: > > On Windows, both MiKTeX and fpTeX have it. > both web2c aren't they? I don't know if MiKTeX is web2c. It wasn't, but it may be now. I'll = look. > > We're asking distributions to > > support Omega, we're not asking users to use some certain = distributions. > > and Y&Y? and vtex and pctex and trutex (but trutex has omega I = believe) > (and on the Mac, textures? oztex?, and MVS mainfame?) some of > the commercial systems have diverted greatly from the original Web > source to offer things like dynamic memory allocation. probably they > will move to a unicode based tex once sufficiently stable, but > are you really ready to tell them to commit resources now? If only they want to upgrade to LaTeX3. You're right, I agree, but I think there are upgraders and there are stickers. Upgraders feel better when they hear about new features, even when they don't need them. And there are some of those guys in the GNU/Linux/Open Source that will even help adding features that they won't ever use. There's another problem with Omega: it seems that it's going to be LGPLed. This will arise another bunch of question. > I don't think there is any chance of having a replacement for LaTeX > that was not going to work with pdftex (or pdfomega) as without > pdftex a large part of the existing users wouldn't move to a new = system > and many uses for xml typesetting would be lost. Having a tex > system that produces pdf with type1 fonts is so much more comforting = to > people who want to have tex as a black box typesetter for xml systems. I get it better now. A pdftex+Omega merger is more important than a LaTeX+Omega. > Unless a system works with all the major tex distributions (either > because it uses standard TeX, or because the TeX distributions > distribute omega or pdftex or etex) it will never replace LaTeX for = many > purposes. > > On the other hand the two versions don't have to be completely > different. For example xmltex shows that utf8, cjk and the others show > utf8 handling isn't impossible with TeX. Given that one would = presumably > still have the \' syntax, and also ready composed unicode characters = in > many cases, just saying that combining characters don't work if = running > over a standard TeX wouldn't be the end of the world. I somehow agree. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C095FF.557F9E80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Multilingual Encodings Summary

On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, David Carlisle wrote:

> > On Windows, both MiKTeX and fpTeX have = it.
> both web2c aren't they?

I don't know if MiKTeX is web2c. It wasn't, but it may = be now. I'll look.

> > We're asking distributions to
> > support Omega, we're not asking users to = use some certain distributions.
>
> and Y&Y? and vtex and pctex and trutex (but = trutex has omega I believe)
> (and on the Mac, textures? oztex?, and MVS = mainfame?) some of
> the commercial systems have diverted greatly = from the original Web
> source to offer things like dynamic memory = allocation. probably they
> will move to a unicode based tex once = sufficiently stable, but
> are you really ready to tell them to commit = resources now?

If only they want to upgrade to LaTeX3. You're right, = I agree, but I
think there are upgraders and there are stickers. = Upgraders feel better
when they hear about new features, even when they = don't need them. And
there are some of those guys in the GNU/Linux/Open = Source that will
even help adding features that they won't ever = use.

There's another problem with Omega: it seems that it's = going to be
LGPLed. This will arise another bunch of = question.

> I don't think there is any chance of having a = replacement for LaTeX
> that was not going to work with pdftex (or = pdfomega) as without
> pdftex a large part of the existing users = wouldn't move to a new system
> and many  uses for xml typesetting would be = lost. Having a tex
> system that produces pdf with type1 fonts is so = much more comforting to
> people who want to have tex as a black box = typesetter for xml systems.

I get it better now. A pdftex+Omega merger is more = important than a
LaTeX+Omega.

> Unless a system works with all the major tex = distributions (either
> because it uses standard TeX, or because the TeX = distributions
> distribute omega or pdftex or etex) it will = never replace LaTeX for many
> purposes.
>
> On the other hand the two versions don't have to = be completely
> different. For example xmltex shows that utf8, = cjk and the others show
> utf8 handling isn't impossible with TeX. Given = that one would presumably
> still have the \' syntax, and also ready = composed unicode characters in
> many cases, just saying that combining = characters don't work if running
> over a standard TeX wouldn't be the end of the = world.

I somehow agree.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C095FF.557F9E80--