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 f1OHjgr11605 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:45:42 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1OHjgs16864 . for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:45:42 +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 f1OHjfQ11950 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:45:42 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C09E89.9B532700" Received: from mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.56]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA09478 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:45:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (mail.listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.5]) by mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1OHjfH28816 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:45:41 +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 <14.6CFF6132@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:45:30 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 493369 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:45:37 +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 SAA06616 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:45:36 +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 SAA21290 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:45:37 +0100 Received: from venus.open.ac.uk (venus.open.ac.uk [137.108.143.2]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1OHjbh12602 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:45:37 +0100 (MET) Received: from fell.open.ac.uk by venus.open.ac.uk via SMTP Local (Mailer 3.1) with ESMTP; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:45:13 +0000 Received: (from car2@localhost) by fell.open.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA02300; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:45:13 GMT In-Reply-To: References: Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.76 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-Authentication-Warning: fell.open.ac.uk: car2 set sender to car2@fell.open.ac.uk using -f Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: LaTeX's internal char prepresentation (UTF8 or Unicode?) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:45:12 +0100 Message-ID: <14999.62248.106453.662235@fell.open.ac.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Chris Rowley" 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: 4014 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09E89.9B532700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lars > Concerning the LMCM, I believe the expressed opinion was that greek = and > cyrillic letters (as input characters) should be allowed in math, But the LICR does not concern itself with input characters. You have performed a lexical trick by dropping the I (for internal) from your acronyms. Can we agree that one question we need to ask is: what is LaTeX's Internal Representation of all `math-mode token = lists'? We should probably pin this down before venturing into Unicode for math-mode. Thus I am agreeing with this: > In a more general view, one should perhaps try to clear up the LMCM if we suitably redefine your LMCM to be my LIMR:-). chris ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09E89.9B532700 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LaTeX's internal char prepresentation (UTF8 or = Unicode?)

Lars

> Concerning the LMCM, I believe the expressed = opinion was that greek and
> cyrillic letters (as input characters) should be = allowed in math,

But the LICR does not concern itself with input = characters.

You have performed a lexical trick by dropping the I = (for internal)
from your acronyms.

Can we agree that one question we need to ask = is:

  what is LaTeX's Internal Representation of all = `math-mode token lists'?

We should probably pin this down before venturing into = Unicode for
math-mode.

Thus I am agreeing with this:

> In a more general view, one should perhaps try to = clear up the LMCM

if we suitably redefine your LMCM to be my = LIMR:-).


chris

------_=_NextPart_001_01C09E89.9B532700--