References: <308a1ed10901171859v1b6a3b8frdb782f6a05e5c6ee@mail.gmail.com>      
            <18804.62224.969079.585420@morse.mittelbach-online.de>           
            <308a1ed10901191802k7de83c4dw1d93dac0dc2c2293@mail.gmail.com> 
            <18806.21636.35985.748784@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
Message-ID:  <F64FBDB6F16F4277982FA3878C48575A@PC1>
Date:         Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:07:03 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Javier Bezos <listas@TEX-TIPOGRAFIA.COM>
Subject: Re: Persian format of LaTeX
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
Precedence: list
Status: R

> > I actually before emailing the LaTeX list, researched a lot and talked 
> > to
> > different people and we all believe that we should have a separate 
> > format of
> > LaTeX at least in 2e version.
>
> it will be interesting to understand the rationale behind this. I'm not 
> saying
> you're wrong, it is just that I don't see a spinoff giving you any
> additional benefits these days. Reasons in the past have been things like
> preloaded fonts and those shouldn't apply  today I would think.

There could be a reason, yet: \documentclass. From other posts,
I think what Vafa wants is to write the whole document using the
Arabic script, including macro names. That's sensible, because
mixing LtoR markup with RtoL text can be a mess and this can be
only accomplished (to some extent) with a format.

Javier