Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Sat, 7 Dec 2002 21:25:18 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gB7KPFTp009425 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 21:25:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C29E2E.C1FC0B00" Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id gB7KKnc3018501; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 21:20:49 +0100 (MET) Received: from listserv (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id gB77guYO032640; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 21:15:14 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 6462 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 21:15:14 +0100 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id gB7KFDTk002889 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 21:15:14 +0100 Received: from wisbech.cl.cam.ac.uk (IDENT:9MTXkWdKSw8/5KUfti8GucSMbzRzgOC/@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.0.15]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id gB7KKNxK010844 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 21:20:23 +0100 (MET) Received: from pallas.cl.cam.ac.uk ([128.232.8.88] helo=cl.cam.ac.uk ident=[qyKFURAWzVeUTyj4CVNUwRV6NwiSvIvA]) by wisbech.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.092 #1) id 18KlR1-00088M-00 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 20:20:23 +0000 In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 07 Dec 2002 19:58:55 +0200. Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2002 20:25:18.0699 (UTC) FILETIME=[C266B3B0:01C29E2E] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.11 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -0.5 () CARRIAGE_RETURNS,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: latex/3480: Support for UTF-8 missing in inputenc.sty Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 21:20:23 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: latex/3480: Support for UTF-8 missing in inputenc.sty Thread-Index: AcKeLsKFl+HYpTOURtOHXa9eNeWegA== From: "Robin Fairbairns" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4380 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C29E2E.C1FC0B00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable apostoulos syropoulos writes: > Don't we need support for UCS-2 encoded files? And what about > Unicode surrogates (i.e., characters that consist of four octets)? the real rationale for adding support of ucs-8 to latex2e is its appearance as default encoding in at least one linux distribution. i don't believe there's justification for "main line" provision for all possible unicode encodings in latex: omega is designed for that sort of thing, and shows every sign of performing. it would be nice to do all of them in latex, but it's not the sort of thing tex is good at, in bulk (imho at least). i'm concerned about performance, about memory consumption, and so on. it would be nice to be proved wrong, but we're not there yet. robin ------_=_NextPart_001_01C29E2E.C1FC0B00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: latex/3480: Support for UTF-8 missing in = inputenc.sty

apostoulos syropoulos writes:

> Don't we need support for UCS-2 encoded files? = And what about
> Unicode surrogates (i.e., characters that = consist of four octets)?

the real rationale for adding support of ucs-8 to = latex2e is its
appearance as default encoding in at least one linux = distribution.

i don't believe there's justification for "main = line" provision for
all possible unicode encodings in latex: omega is = designed for that
sort of thing, and shows every sign of = performing.  it would be nice
to do all of them in latex, but it's not the sort of = thing tex is good
at, in bulk (imho at least).

i'm concerned about performance, about memory = consumption, and so on.
it would be nice to be proved wrong, but we're not = there yet.

robin

------_=_NextPart_001_01C29E2E.C1FC0B00--