MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-ID:  <864mpaowm3.fsf@frenzy.freefriends.org>
Date:         Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:32:04 -0600
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: Karl Berry <karl@FREEFRIENDS.ORG>
Subject: Re: latex and unicode-letters
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <5511E1F9.9020808@morningstar2.co.uk> (message from Joseph Wright
              on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 22:15:21 +0000)
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Status: R

    Yes, ltunicode is a direct replacement for unicode-letters. Everything
    the latter does is covered by ltunicode.

Great, thanks.

    Yes. (We could happily make ltunicode loadable by plain, but that might
    not be that helpful.)

I was wondering about that.  It actually sounds like a good thing in
terms of maintenance to me.  I would make a physical copy inside TL so
that all of LaTeX is not pulled in for it, but having only one file,
generated in one way, sounds preferable, if it's easy enough to do.

    Both EastAsianWidth.txt and LineBreak.txt have a version which we've
    talked about copying in to the processed file. Regrettably, there is
    no version in UnicodeData.txt:

Yes, that's why I suggested something else :).  I think it's also quite
possible that Unicode has released ("updated") differing files with the
same version number.  Unicode versions in general are a hard problem.

Thanks,
K