On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 07:43:08PM -0400, Karljurgen Feuerherm wrote: >[...]
First to make clear what I was refering to (and making a false generalization) : the XeTeX FAQ: "However, standard Unicode-compliant fonts do not include ligatures for these sequences, as the normal expectation is that the actual Unicode characters will be used in the source text." Re-reading it, it's not "all ligatures" that are gone with "Unicode-compliant fonts", but it spoke about the em- and en-dashes and double quotes. So on these ones, I plead guilty. But starting with "modern fonts", "modern system", "archaic" and the like, it's like starting with: "only Adolf Hitler would still use not Unicode fonts". > 4. You suggested in an earlier email that you'd like to think the whole > thing through carefully in advance, rather than implement things in > stages, as others do, who then never get to the advanced stages. To me > this begs the question of whether such is always universally the case. There are 2 essential things in a human mental process: 1) there is a string of thoughts; even ideas that seem for others foreign had a path in the discoverer mind; he started in the vicinity of his knowledge. One that gets dropped in the middle of nowhere will never make a discovery. The former is clearing the virgin forest; the latter is beating around the bush. The first is the tortoise; the second the hare. 2) There is no actual infinite: resources, specially in time, are limited. And generally, when a resource is of the highest quality, it is scarce. For example, I have a stupendous patience; but not a lot of it. A first step for TeX is obvious: put aside the direction of writing, and do things so that at least Unicode (in utf encoding) can be mastered as input (and at least interactive output), and also, since it is a formatting system, that adequate fonts can be accessed. But, as the present state allows the use for every character set that fits in eight bits, by using (for Plan9 users) tcs(1) to feed TeX with what it expects, I will not delay forever the release of 1.0 waiting for this next solution. And this extension to utf will be done in the spirit of utf: it will be an extension, but compatible with the existing. One would take the TeXbook and obtains exactly what described here. In particular, selecting a Computer Modern font will work as described in the TeXbook. >[...] > 5. All that being said--Plan 9, as far as I can see, intentionally > supports Unicode (see http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/about.html). ( > http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/about.html). ) So to me, it's a > non-starter to want to port *TeX to Plan 9 but rail against Unicode, > whether justifiably or through misunderstanding. I have written that TeX shall accept utf as input and output (for text) and utf is an encoding of a special all encompassing character set: Unicode. So where did I wrote that I don't plan to support Unicode (because of utf)? What I did say, and say again, is that, whether people continue throwing "archaic vs modern" and various other Godwin points arguments or not, if to my taste I still want to have ligatures for em-, en-dashes, various quoting and whatever; and if I want to put in ASCII control places _in font_, characters expected for tex-text compatibility, I will do. This doesn't prevent anybody from doing whatever one likes; but symetrically, I'm libre to do whatever I want. Specially if I do the work. -- Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com> http://www.kergis.com/ Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
