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 f1E1AiH29409 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:10:44 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1E1Ahd03986 . for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:10:43 +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 f1E1Ah721805 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:10:43 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C09622.F469C200" 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 CAA26066 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:10:43 +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 f1E1Af721801 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:10:41 +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 <2.C7225ED4@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 2:10:34 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 487457 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:10:37 +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 CAA12489 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:10:36 +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 CAA29388 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:10:37 +0100 Received: from mail.omnilink.net (mail.omnilink.net [194.64.25.6]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1E1Abg27404 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:10:37 +0100 (MET) Received: from gazette.omnilink.net (gazette.omnilink.net [194.64.25.22]) by mail.omnilink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA62999 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:21:55 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from schrod@npc.de) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by gazette.omnilink.net (8.9.2/8.9.3) with UUCP id CAA12755 for LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:14:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from puma.npc.de (root@n-puma.npc.de [192.168.129.1]) by npc.de (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA24894 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:11:39 +0100 Received: (from schrod@localhost) by puma.npc.de (8.10.2/8.9.3) id f1DMBcp11447; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:11:38 +0100 In-Reply-To: <14984.18308.756533.288852@spqr2.oucs.ox.ac.uk> 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> <14983.2022.587938.334186@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de> <14983.47178.155759.245619@spqr.oucs.ox.ac.uk> <20010212145128.A15449@turing.maths.tcd.ie> <14983.64319.129182.60126@fell.open.ac.uk> <14984.64.432416.64500@spqr.oucs.ox.ac.uk> <14984.2975.249847.854981@fell.open.ac.uk> <14984.3191.15849.63044@spqr.oucs.ox.ac.uk> <200102121739.SAA08096@ohio.bank.dresdner.net> <14984.18308.756533.288852@spqr2.oucs.ox.ac.uk> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.70 under 19.15p5 XEmacs Lucid Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: LaTeX's internal char prepresentation (UTF8 or Unicode?) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:11:38 +0100 Message-ID: <14985.45338.830575.174077@puma.npc.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Joachim Schrod" 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: 3903 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09622.F469C200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "SR" =3D=3D Sebastian Rahtz = writes: SR> Joachim Schrod writes: >> As an authoring language, XML is inadequate beyond recognition. It's >> reasonably good for exchange of data and well suited for archiving >> documents, but not made for human consumption. SR> Between 1985 and 1999 I wrote LaTeX practically every day of my SR> life. Since 1999 I have written XML practically every day. I barely SR> notice the extra characters, and in general my day to day authoring = is SR> more satisyfying. No, I am not joking at all. I believe you -- both, that you're doing it, and that you're not joking. Remember, I saw you at Oxford, typing non-english characters by using their Unicode numeric value. Horrible, honestly. That's something you will be able to live with. (I don't, but I don't need to.) I'm using XML heavily since it's available, and have used SGML before for years. And I still think that from a technological viewpoint, XML is much worse than SGML. (Making a language easier for the parser writer and at quite some places harder to use for humans is not a good road to go, IMO.) From a business viewpoint, that's a completely different story, of course. :-) :-) But let me try to focus on the topic at hand: XML does not suck for you -- well, and also not for me, most of the time. We're happy with Emacs or other programmer's editors and are used to structured document markup. *BUT*, XML sucks for the "normal" people in the companies where I do consulting. It needs a training effort that's not affordable for almost all tasks. The training effort is even larger than the one for LaTeX. That's what I meant when I wrote "inadequate as authoring language". >> still psgmls on (X)Emacs is one of the best authoring environments >> around; that's a shame. SR> why is it a shame? its an excellent editor. tried epcEdit :-} Tell this the business managers of the companies I work for. They won't make another meeting with you. (This won't bother you, I know; but I have to earn the paychecks of my staff...) >> and all showed that the hype that's spread by XML fanatics isn't = worth >> the paper it's printed on (or the disk space it's stored in). I'll >> tell you, these projects were more than depressing... SR> possibly, possibly not. but I bet we can both agree that they are = more SR> successful than the attempts to spread LaTeX in the `real' world! The projects were _very_ successful when XML was introduced for (1) internal representation of data (2) communication of data between applications (3) specification of user interfaces by programmers (i.e., formalized documentation of the results of our UI designer -- who does great communication design but will never be able to grasp proper realization of the concept of non-presentational markup... :( ) The projects were failures when XML was introduced at the user level. ("User" here means staff of banks, like secretaries, etc.) SR> In a moment, Frank will shout at me in private for getting off the SR> subject of the list, and complain in public that no-one takes the L3 SR> research seriously enough. He didn't, but I suspect just for your birthday. He may shout now at me. :) :) Cheers, Joachim -- =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D= -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-= =3D Joachim Schrod Email: jschrod@npc.de Net & Publication Consultance GmbH Tel.: +49-6074-861530 Roedermark, Germany Fax: +49-6074-861531 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09622.F469C200 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LaTeX's internal char prepresentation (UTF8 or = Unicode?)

>>>>> "SR" =3D=3D Sebastian = Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@COMPUTING-SERVICES.OXFORD.AC.UK> = writes:

SR> Joachim Schrod writes:
>> As an authoring language, XML is inadequate = beyond recognition. It's
>> reasonably good for exchange of data and = well suited for archiving
>> documents, but not made for human = consumption.

SR> Between 1985 and 1999 I wrote LaTeX practically = every day of my
SR> life. Since 1999 I have written XML = practically every day. I barely
SR> notice the extra characters, and in general my = day to day authoring is
SR> more satisyfying. No, I am not joking at = all.

I believe you -- both, that you're doing it, and that = you're not
joking. Remember, I saw you at Oxford, typing = non-english characters
by using their Unicode numeric value. Horrible, = honestly.

That's something you will be able to live with. (I = don't, but I don't
need to.) I'm using XML heavily since it's available, = and have used
SGML before for years. And I still think that from a = technological
viewpoint, XML is much worse than SGML. (Making a = language easier for
the parser writer and at quite some places harder to = use for humans is
not a good road to go, IMO.) From a business = viewpoint, that's a
completely different story, of course. :-) :-)

But let me try to focus on the topic at hand: XML does = not suck for
you -- well, and also not for me, most of the time. = We're happy with
Emacs or other programmer's editors and are used to = structured
document markup. *BUT*, XML sucks for the = "normal" people in the
companies where I do consulting. It needs a training = effort that's not
affordable for almost all tasks. The training effort = is even larger
than the one for LaTeX. That's what I meant when I = wrote "inadequate
as authoring language".

>> still psgmls on (X)Emacs is one of the best = authoring environments
>> around; that's a shame.

SR> why is it a shame? its an excellent editor. = tried epcEdit :-}

Tell this the business managers of the companies I = work for. They
won't make another meeting with you. (This won't = bother you, I know;
but I have to earn the paychecks of my = staff...)

>> and all showed that the hype that's spread by = XML fanatics isn't worth
>> the paper it's printed on (or the disk space = it's stored in). I'll
>> tell you, these projects were more than = depressing...

SR> possibly, possibly not. but I bet we can both = agree that they are more
SR> successful than the attempts to spread LaTeX = in the `real' world!

The projects were _very_ successful when XML was = introduced for
 (1) internal representation of data
 (2) communication of data between = applications
 (3) specification of user interfaces by = programmers (i.e., formalized
     documentation of the results = of our UI designer -- who does great
     communication design but = will never be able to grasp proper
     realization of the concept = of non-presentational markup... :( )

The projects were failures when XML was introduced at = the user level.
("User" here means staff of banks, like = secretaries, etc.)


SR> In a moment, Frank will shout at me in private = for getting off the
SR> subject of the list, and complain in public = that no-one takes the L3
SR> research seriously enough.

He didn't, but I suspect just for your birthday. He = may shout now at
me. :) :)

Cheers,

        = Joachim

--
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-= =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D= -=3D-=3D-=3D
Joachim = Schrod           &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;          Email: = jschrod@npc.de
Net & Publication Consultance = GmbH           &nb= sp;  Tel.:  +49-6074-861530
Roedermark, = Germany           =             &= nbsp;     Fax:   +49-6074-861531

------_=_NextPart_001_01C09622.F469C200--