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 f5AIkVf02759 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:46:31 +0200 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f5AIkVp21447 . for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:46:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 f5AIkU001590 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:46:30 +0200 (MET DST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0F1DD.AA15DD80" 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 UAA29481 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:46:29 +0200 (MEST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 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 f5AIkTU07783 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:46:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by mail.listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <13.8F2B0267@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:44:08 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 497209 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:46:26 +0200 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 UAA06762 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:46:24 +0200 (MET DST) 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 UAA103174 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:46:25 +0200 Received: from algonet.se (delenn.tninet.se [195.100.94.104]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5AIkJ121084 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:46:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [195.100.226.128] (du128-226.ppp.su-anst.tninet.se [195.100.226.128]) by delenn.tninet.se (BLUETAIL Mail Robustifier 2.2.2) with ESMTP id 148154.198774.992delenn-s1 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:46:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: <15139.19554.60097.701498@fell.open.ac.uk> References: <200105270954.f4R9sBI23611@smtp.wanadoo.es> Return-Path: X-Sender: haberg@pop.matematik.su.se Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: \InputTranslation Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 19:27:48 +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: 4118 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0F1DD.AA15DD80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 11:30 +0100 2001/06/10, Chris Rowley wrote: >> In addition to merely stamp the language label on a string, I think >> that possibly one may have to stack it, that is, if there is a quote = of >> French within English, then one can from within the French quote know = that >> it is within an English quote. > >Frank's new LaTeX language model supports something quite >sophisticated in this direction but this is for structured documents. It is a tricky question -- the suggestion is to move it (the language markup) to a more fundamental level, so it is always present. Then see = what happens -- of it is unworkable or not. >It is not clear that information about the hierarchy makes sense >when attached to an arbitrary text string since that may well get >removed from its plqace in the hierarchy. Quite on the contrary, when moving strings around, it easier to have the language hierarchy already present: Suppose you have an upper level French quote from some text, with other languages nested within, and you want to insert it into an English text. Then you simply move it in, with all hierarchical language levels: Think = of a markup say moved somewhere into the quote. When you select a sub-quote from an already language markupped text, it merely gets the language labels it already has. In effect, one is copying trees instead of lists. >We have two _different_ things here, both naturally called language >labels, whose values are closely related). I am not sure what you mean here: It is necessary to treat human = language dialects of the same language (like US and UK English) as different "abstract languages" in the computer, because they will for example make use of different dictionaries for spell checking. If one wants to be able to treat such different dialects as the same = (i.e., like only "English" in the example), one can do that by adding another variable to the bundle of variables that controls the language behavior. The issue is complicated, but I think this is close to the model used on computers that admit language localizations (like MacOS X). Hans Aberg ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0F1DD.AA15DD80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: \InputTranslation

At 11:30 +0100 2001/06/10, Chris Rowley wrote:
>> In addition to merely stamp the language = label on a string, I think
>> that possibly one may have to stack it, that = is, if there is a quote of
>> French within English, then one can from = within the French quote know that
>> it is within an English quote.
>
>Frank's new LaTeX language model supports = something quite
>sophisticated in this direction but this is for = structured documents.

It is a tricky question -- the suggestion is to move = it (the language
markup) to a more fundamental level, so it is always = present. Then see what
happens -- of it is unworkable or not.

>It is not clear that information about the = hierarchy makes sense
>when attached to an arbitrary text string since = that may well get
>removed from its plqace in the hierarchy.

Quite on the contrary, when moving strings around, it = easier to have the
language hierarchy already present:

Suppose you have an upper level French quote from some = text, with other
languages nested within, and you want to insert it = into an English text.
Then you simply move it in, with all hierarchical = language levels: Think of
a markup say <french| ... |french> moved = somewhere into the <english| ...
|english> quote.

When you select a sub-quote from an already language = markupped text, it
merely gets the language labels it already = has.

In effect, one is copying trees instead of = lists.

>We have two _different_ things here, both = naturally called language
>labels, whose values are closely related).

I am not sure what you mean here: It is necessary to = treat human language
dialects of the same language (like US and UK = English) as different
"abstract languages" in the computer, = because they will for example make
use of different dictionaries for spell = checking.

If one wants to be able to treat such different = dialects as the same (i.e.,
like only "English" in the example), one = can do that by adding another
variable to the bundle of variables that controls the = language behavior.

The issue is complicated, but I think this is close to = the model used on
computers that admit language localizations (like = MacOS X).

  Hans Aberg

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0F1DD.AA15DD80--