On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 12:34 +0200, Charles de Miramon wrote: > Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > > > > > Think *unicode* and forget about this one for now. > > > > I'm not a developper but I'm wondering if you are not underestimating the > complexity of going Unicode. Changing the internal format to Unicode is > maybe not that hard but having a fully Unicode editor is *very* complex. It > took 3 years to another Norwegian Lars from Trolltech to code Scribe and I > doubt that Pango the Gtk counterpart has took less time. If you leave > European languages, you are going in a sea of misery. Think languages with > ligatures like Arabic where if you select part of a word you must change > the shape of the letter in your clipboard and that is just the beginning. > Leave the Middle East to Asia and the complexity is multiplied.
Actually LyX at some point (perhaps with patches) supported CJK and
still supports (at least partly, may be broken now) Hebrew and Arabic,
with precisely those complications.
Going to Unicode would mean relying on standard libraries for that,
rather than re-inventing the wheel.
...
> - Extensibility. Make it easy to add a Gui for LaTeX package foo. For
> example, when I choose French for my document, I would like to have a
> 'nombre' formatting option appear in my menu to format numbers the French
> way and not be obliged to enter \nombre{1000} in ERT.
This is what character styles are for!
- Martin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
