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 f1LKmnr29887 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:48:49 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1LKmjd05201 . for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:48:49 +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 f1LKmiQ12619 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:48:44 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C09C47.B0D90E80" 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 VAA05011 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:48:44 +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 f1LKmdQ12610 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:48:39 +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 <9.7E0B55D5@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:48:30 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 492411 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:48:37 +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 VAA20369 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:48:35 +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 VAA58698 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:48:35 +0100 Received: from moutvdom00.kundenserver.de (moutvdom00.kundenserver.de [195.20.224.149]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1LKmZx02515 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:48:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from [195.20.224.220] (helo=mrvdom04.kundenserver.de) by moutvdom00.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14VgBf-0004Vt-00 for LATEX-L@urz.uni-heidelberg.de; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:48:35 +0100 Received: from manz-3e364585.pool.mediaways.net ([62.54.69.133] helo=istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de) by mrvdom04.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14VgBb-00053X-00 for LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:48:31 +0100 Received: (from latex3@localhost) by istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id VAA32318; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:45:03 +0100 In-Reply-To: <14985.49901.719230.884652@spqr2.oucs.ox.ac.uk> References: <200102131350.IAA05912@hilbert.math.albany.edu> <14985.38673.90940.10236@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de> <14985.49901.719230.884652@spqr2.oucs.ox.ac.uk> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under Emacs 20.4.1 X-Authentication-Warning: istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de: latex3 set sender to frank@mittelbach-online.de using -f Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: LaTeX's internal char prepresentation (UTF8 or Unicode?) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:45:02 +0100 Message-ID: <14996.10446.221542.469341@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Frank Mittelbach" 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: 4002 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09C47.B0D90E80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sebastian wrote: > > 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 > > quite. this is a criticism of XSL Formatting Objects, not XML or > Unicode, which is the core consideration. indeed. my criticism of Unicode is in other areas. however unicode is a = fact and as such better as nothing. > > > low-level formatter which is not capable of properly quering its > > generated typography data (something TeX(variant) systems can). > > I agree with you that this is desirable; and essential for certain > types of design. but will you bet your whole kit and caboodle on = those > design features, at any price? Thats the dilemma *I* find myself no. not betting. but then quality in that area was never the big = attraction and probably never will be. however that doesn't mean that one shouldn't = look for it, should it? frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09C47.B0D90E80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LaTeX's internal char prepresentation (UTF8 or = Unicode?)

Sebastian wrote:

 >  > 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
 >
 > quite. this is a criticism of XSL = Formatting Objects, not XML or
 > Unicode, which is the core = consideration.

indeed. my criticism of Unicode is in other areas. = however unicode is a fact
and as such better as nothing.

 >
 >  > low-level formatter which is = not capable of properly quering its
 >  > generated typography data = (something TeX(variant) systems can).
 >
 > I agree with you that this is desirable; = and essential for certain
 > types of design. but will you bet your = whole kit and caboodle on those
 > design features, at any price? Thats the = dilemma *I* find myself

no. not betting. but then quality in that area was = never the big attraction
and probably never will be. however that doesn't mean = that one shouldn't look
for it, should it?


frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C09C47.B0D90E80--