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 f1NEcTr07057 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:38:29 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1NEcSs12537 . for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:38:28 +0100 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 f1NE2SH22082 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:02:28 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C09DA6.4985A080" 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 PAA27968 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:02:27 +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 f1NE2RQ05639 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:02:27 +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 <1.136415AD@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:02:17 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 493214 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:02:24 +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 PAA16667 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:02:23 +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 PAA46050 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:02:23 +0100 Received: from hromeo.algonet.se (hromeo.algonet.se [194.213.74.51]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id f1NE2Mh03338 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:02:22 +0100 (MET) Received: (qmail 3214 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2001 15:02:21 +0100 Received: from garibaldi.tninet.se (HELO algonet.se) (195.100.94.103) by hromeo.algonet.se with SMTP; 23 Feb 2001 15:02:21 +0100 Received: from [195.100.226.147] (du136-226.ppp.su-anst.tninet.se [195.100.226.136]) by garibaldi.tninet.se (BLUETAIL Mail Robustifier 2.2.1) with ESMTP id 839350.936938.982garibaldi-s1 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:02:18 +0100 In-Reply-To: <14998.10371.943812.829077@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de> References: <14984.13275.957442.490284@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Return-Path: X-Sender: haberg@pop.matematik.su.se Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: insufficent NFSS model (?) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:27:00 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Hans Aberg" 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: 4005 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09DA6.4985A080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 10:08 +0100 2001/02/23, Frank Mittelbach wrote: >This should work both ways, ie if you have different high-level = commands in >languages like Persian and you have a multilingual document with = dominant >language Persian one should map the "persian-high-levels". > >More complicated perhaps are situations where the different scripts are = really >equivalent in use. do we then map all such high-level commands, do we = use them >all, do we just use one set, nevertheless? Please describe what you have in your mind in this latter question in greater detail. Hans Aberg ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09DA6.4985A080 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: insufficent NFSS model (?)

At 10:08 +0100 2001/02/23, Frank Mittelbach = wrote:
>This should work both ways, ie if you have = different high-level commands in
>languages like Persian and you have a = multilingual document  with dominant
>language Persian one should map the = "persian-high-levels".
>
>More complicated perhaps are situations where the = different scripts are really
>equivalent in use. do we then map all such = high-level commands, do we use them
>all, do we just use one set, nevertheless?

Please describe what you have in your mind in this = latter question in
greater detail.

  Hans Aberg

------_=_NextPart_001_01C09DA6.4985A080--