Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:24:02 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h13MNt6C019775 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:24:00 +0100 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 h13MDZtt017766; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:13:35 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2CBD2.F42DAD00" 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 h133iQVT031075; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:05:33 +0100 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 7892 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:05:32 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h13M5WPw006576 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:05:32 +0100 Received: from smtp-3.star.net.uk (smtp-3.star.net.uk [212.125.75.72]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with SMTP id h13MDDtt017705 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:13:13 +0100 (MET) Received: (qmail 31277 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2003 22:13:13 -0000 Received: from nagmx1.nag.co.uk (HELO nag.co.uk) (62.231.145.242) by smtp-3.star.net.uk with SMTP; 3 Feb 2003 22:13:13 -0000 Received: from e3000 (e3000.nag.co.uk [192.156.217.111]) by nag.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA10067 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 22:13:06 GMT Received: by e3000 (SMI-8.6) id WAA18704; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 22:13:03 GMT In-Reply-To: <630BE70C8320D6118D240002A589ABB204A9504F@DERUM201> (frank.mittelbach@EDS.COM) Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2003 22:24:02.0268 (UTC) FILETIME=[F45691C0:01C2CBD2] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -0.8 () IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: AW: latex/3480: Support for UTF-8 missing in inputenc.sty Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:13:03 +0100 Message-ID: A<200302032213.WAA18704@e3000> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: AW: latex/3480: Support for UTF-8 missing in inputenc.sty Thread-Index: AcLL0vSTDZClYOcRT6CVcFasxBi4Vw== From: "David Carlisle" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4531 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2CBD2.F42DAD00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > right, but the question is the ownership of data. I think it would be = a good > idea for us (LaTeX/TeX world) to maintain a source file that gives the > mapping from unicode to LICR (having decided what the LICR's are). of course the hard bit, as you imply, is the bit in brackets. I can see that looking from your side the unicode.xml file looks a bit remote and out of reach, so I understand the concern (and agree) that the mapping should be more visibly in latex control. Of course from my side the distinction is rather more blurred as the master copy of that file is effectively on my machine here... > The move from that file to the unicode file could then be done by some > automated process Fair enough, politically that may be the best way to go. David ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2CBD2.F42DAD00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: AW: latex/3480: Support for UTF-8 missing in = inputenc.sty

> right, but the question is the ownership of data. = I think it would be a good
> idea for us (LaTeX/TeX world) to maintain a = source file that gives the
> mapping from unicode to LICR (having decided = what the LICR's are).

of course the hard bit, as you imply, is the bit in = brackets. I can see
that looking from your side the unicode.xml file = looks a bit remote and
out of reach, so I understand the concern (and agree) = that the mapping
should be more visibly in latex control. Of course = from my side the
distinction is rather more blurred as the master copy = of that file is
effectively on my machine here...


> The move from that file to the unicode file could = then be done by some
> automated process

Fair enough, politically that may be the best way to = go.

David

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2CBD2.F42DAD00--