2011/11/14 Mike Maxwell :
> On 11/14/2011 4:56 PM, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
>>
>> 2011/11/14 Mike Maxwell:
>>>
>>> We are not (at least I am not) suggesting that everyone must use
>>> the Unicode non-breaking space character, or etc. What we *are*
>>> suggesting is that in Xe(La)Tex, we be *allowed* t
Am Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:09:41 -0800 schrieb Chris Travers:
> Would you be opposed to requiring an on-switch which would be required
> before unicode whitespace characters acquire special meaning?
The various unicode whitespaces already have special meaning. Like
"a" give something else than "b
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 02:27:03AM -0800, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Petr Tomasek wrote:
>
> > Using different color.
> >
> Do we really want to tie XeTeX users to a small number of editors?
>
> Chris Travers
Do we really make XeTeX incompatible with the rest of the
We could also have an switch, when turned on displays the various
whitespaces using particular glyphs. MS Word does this and displays an
ordinary space with ·, a non breaking space with °, a tab with →, a line
break with ↲ and a paragraph break with ¶.
On 15 November 2011 09:13, Mike Maxwell wro
Hi Chris, Zdenek, and others
On 15/11/2011, at 10:09 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Mike Maxwell wrote:
>> On 11/14/2011 4:56 PM, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
>
>
>
>> But in fact, the last time I tried this, the NBSP character was interpreted
>> in the same way as an ASC
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Mike Maxwell wrote:
> On 11/14/2011 4:56 PM, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> But in fact, the last time I tried this, the NBSP character was interpreted
> in the same way as an ASCII space, which is not what I want. What I want
> (repeating myself again) is for such cha
On 11/14/2011 4:56 PM, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
2011/11/14 Mike Maxwell:
We are not (at least I am not) suggesting that everyone must use
the Unicode non-breaking space character, or etc. What we *are*
suggesting is that in Xe(La)Tex, we be *allowed* to use those
characters, and that they have thei
2011/11/14 Mike Maxwell :
>
> I'm going to repeat myself, or maybe if I shout I'll be heard?
>
> We are not (at least I am not) suggesting that everyone must use the Unicode
> non-breaking space character, or etc. What we *are* suggesting is that in
> Xe(La)Tex, we be *allowed* to use those chara
On 11/14/2011 5:38 AM, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
2011/11/14 Petr Tomasek:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 06:25:08PM +0200, Tobias Schoel wrote:
Am 13.11.2011 18:16, schrieb Philip TAYLOR:
Not in every case. How would you visually differentiate between all the
white space characters (space vs. non-break spa
2011/11/14 Keith J. Schultz :
> Hi Zdenek,
>
> I am suggesting that one be forced to use any particular editor.
>
> But, if we want a unified/consistent editor across all platforms,
No, I need unified graphical representation accross editors. One of my
customers was Czech National Bank. Due to sec
Hi Zdenek,
I am suggesting that one be forced to use any particular editor.
But, if we want a unified/consistent editor across all platforms,
I would consider TeXWorks as a viable candidate as it is already cross platform.
It should be easy enough to add a feature that could make the different fo
Hi Herbert,
You are absolutely right in your assessment. True plain text files are/where
traditionally 7-bits.
Though, I have to tell you that nowadays even 8-bit files are considered plain
text.
The verdict is still out in how far unicode text files are plain text files, as
unicode is well u
2011/11/14 Keith J. Schultz :
> Well, Zdenek,
>
> I guess that is where TeXWorks comes to mind. It could give a unified
> GUI for TeX with unicode.
>
Does it mean I will be forced to use TeXWorks and nothing else? And
will it work over telnet or ssh without graphics? I have other unicode
capable ed
On Nov 14, 2011, at 7:11 AM, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>
>
> Karljurgen Feuerherm wrote:
>
>> It depends on who is reading them. Their markup is markup only fron the
>> point of view of their interpreters, i.e. *TeX, etc. From the point of
>> view of something else, they are plain.
>
> Yes, the Un
Am Mon, 14 Nov 2011 04:05:58 -0800 schrieb Chris Travers:
> I think one of the key strengths of TeX is that it can be edited
> gracefully by ANY basic text editor. I would hate for that to be
> lost.
Well already pdflatex can handle utf8-documents which contains cjk
or greek which are quite diff
Karljurgen Feuerherm wrote:
It depends on who is reading them. Their markup is markup only fron the
point of view of their interpreters, i.e. *TeX, etc. From the point of
view of something else, they are plain.
Yes, the Universe of Discourse (and/or the pragmatics
of discourse) do have a inp
When you are willing to come back to a serious discussion we talk.
I am participating in a serious discussion, Keith,
but I am more than happy to ignore your own inane
babble if it will make you any happier.
Philip Taylor
Keith J Schultz wrote :
Hi Humpty Dumpty,
Go read the sta
>> Now, for the youngsters XML, TeX, HTML are per definition plain text
files.
>
> No, they are text files, not /plain/ text files. Look
> at some mime types :
>
> text/plain (for plain text)
> text/html (for HTML)
It depends on who is reading them. Their markup is markup only fron th
Hi Humpty Dumpty,
Go read the standards and cry without kissing the girls.
Evidently, you are trained in computer science or you would
know what a real plain text file is.
Also, in computer science we do not use the definitions of lay persons nor
common language use.
I assume you know all ab
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, Petr Tomasek wrote:
> > Not in every case. How would you visually differentiate between all the
> > white space characters (space vs. non-break space, thin space (u2009)
> Using different color.
About 8% of men have some form of colour blindness (the prevalance is much
lower,
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Keith J. Schultz wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I agree with you that one should be able to see the differences in an editor,
> but this feature should be feature to turn off and on.
Absolutely. If it requires an on switch to take effect, I have no complaints.
>
> The qu
Hi Chris,
I agree with you that one should be able to see the differences in an editor,
but this feature should be feature to turn off and on.
The question is what is an ordinary editor.
Also, most prefer to use their pet editors.
regards
Keith.
> I get worried when reserved character
Well, Zdenek,
I guess that is where TeXWorks comes to mind. It could give a unified
GUI for TeX with unicode.
regards
Keith.
Am 14.11.2011 um 11:38 schrieb Zdenek Wagner:
> You live in a perfect world where you can do everything with a single
> editor using nice GUI. The world is not y
Well, XeTeX users are already restricted in their choice of editors. The
must/should support
minimalistically unicode. Of course you can enter the characters/glyphs in a
cryptic manner.
Have fun reading a text with true unicode!
Also, remember when you had to use ALT-XXX for entering characters
Hi there,
Am 14.11.2011 um 11:20 schrieb Chris Travers:
> My $0.02
>
> In general, I think we are going to get the most mileage by sticking
> with the TeX way of doing things by default. The nice thing is that ~
> can be turned into a non-active character, and one can set other
> thing
Chris Travers wrote:
But what's the point of putting non-breaking spaces between a word and
the end of a line? or for that matter what if I alternate spaces and
special unicode spaces? Do I get a word space for each of them?
In (e.g.,) HTML, it is by no means unusual to interweave
spaces an
Hi Zdenek, all,
I was to lazy to list all those encodings.
I will be more precise know for those not reading carefully.
There is a difference between what is considered plain text in the
computer
world and what its content is.
Basically, plain te
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>
>
> Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> Ok, so why don't we have a similar macro here? Something like:
>> \obeynbsps
>
> See above : there are /some/ things that TeX does that
> transcend category codes (which are the basis for \obeylines);
> in parti
Chris Travers wrote:
Ok, so why don't we have a similar macro here? Something like:
\obeynbsps
See above : there are /some/ things that TeX does that
transcend category codes (which are the basis for \obeylines);
in particular [1] :
"$$ TeX deletes any characters (number 32)" that occur
Hi Peter,
Simple answer No do not use the emacs editor, hate it!
I have not look at emacs in a very long time, but I assume
that it does not understand unicode, along with other text encodings.
But, you can edit TeX, HTML, and XML with it!
Please see my r
Keith J. Schultz wrote:
Hi Phillip,
Am 14.11.2011 um 09:36 schrieb Philip TAYLOR:
Keith J. Schultz wrote:
So, Unicode needs an editor to be displayed correctly.
Why ? Not meant to sound aggressive, but seems a very
odd assertion, IMHO. Editors are for changing things;
why would you n
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:56 AM, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>
>
> Chris Travers wrote:
>>
>> One other thought occurs to me.
>>
>> Typically in a TeX document, whitespace is not semantic. In other
>> words, spaces, tabs, and carriage returns are not differentiated. If
>> we are so keen on supporting a
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Peter Dyballa wrote:
>
> Am 14.11.2011 um 11:16 schrieb Zdenek Wagner:
>
>> Does it display Devanagari, Arabic, Tibetan, Hebrew correctly?
>
> LTR can be improved (it's maintained by a guy who probably, judging by his
> name, can write and read Hebrew), shaping is
Hi Phillip,
Am 14.11.2011 um 09:36 schrieb Philip TAYLOR:
>
>
> Keith J. Schultz wrote:
>
>> So, Unicode needs an editor to be displayed correctly.
>
> Why ? Not meant to sound aggressive, but seems a very
> odd assertion, IMHO. Editors are for changing things;
> why would you need a progra
Chris Travers wrote:
One other thought occurs to me.
Typically in a TeX document, whitespace is not semantic. In other
words, spaces, tabs, and carriage returns are not differentiated. If
we are so keen on supporting a few special whitespace characters, why
not also support tabs and make car
Am 14.11.2011 um 11:16 schrieb Zdenek Wagner:
> Does it display Devanagari, Arabic, Tibetan, Hebrew correctly?
LTR can be improved (it's maintained by a guy who probably, judging by his
name, can write and read Hebrew), shaping is handled by libotf and libm17n. It
can also be improved. But the
One other thought occurs to me.
Typically in a TeX document, whitespace is not semantic. In other
words, spaces, tabs, and carriage returns are not differentiated. If
we are so keen on supporting a few special whitespace characters, why
not also support tabs and make carriage returns, you know,
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>
>
> Chris Travers wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Petr Tomasek wrote:
>>
>>> Using different color.
>>>
>> Do we really want to tie XeTeX users to a small number of editors?
>
> No. But nor do we want to preclude the possibili
2011/11/14 Petr Tomasek :
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 06:25:08PM +0200, Tobias Schoel wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 13.11.2011 18:16, schrieb Philip TAYLOR:
>> >
>> >
>> >Tobias Schoel wrote:
>> >
>> >>One opinion says, that using (La)TeX is programming. Consequently, each
>> >>character used should be visually
Chris Travers wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Petr Tomasek wrote:
Using different color.
Do we really want to tie XeTeX users to a small number of editors?
No. But nor do we want to preclude the possibility of
someone taking UTF-8 containing these "magic" characters
from somewhe
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Petr Tomasek wrote:
> Using different color.
>
Do we really want to tie XeTeX users to a small number of editors?
Chris Travers
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listi
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 06:25:08PM +0200, Tobias Schoel wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.11.2011 18:16, schrieb Philip TAYLOR:
> >
> >
> >Tobias Schoel wrote:
> >
> >>One opinion says, that using (La)TeX is programming. Consequently, each
> >>character used should be visually well distinguishable. This is not
My $0.02
In general, I think we are going to get the most mileage by sticking
with the TeX way of doing things by default. The nice thing is that ~
can be turned into a non-active character, and one can set other
things if they want. For the record, I think that having non-breaking
spaces in a p
2011/11/14 Peter Dyballa :
>
> Am 14.11.2011 um 09:21 schrieb Keith J. Schultz:
>
>> So, Unicode needs an editor to be displayed correctly.
>
> Use GNU Emacs!
>
Does it display Devanagari, Arabic, Tibetan, Hebrew correctly?
> --
> Greetings
>
> Pete
>
> Hard Disk, n.:
> A device that allow
Am 14.11.2011 um 09:21 schrieb Keith J. Schultz:
> So, Unicode needs an editor to be displayed correctly.
Use GNU Emacs!
--
Greetings
Pete
Hard Disk, n.:
A device that allows users to delete vast quantities of data with
simple mnemonic commands.
2011/11/14 Philip TAYLOR :
>
>
> Keith J. Schultz wrote:
>
>> So, Unicode needs an editor to be displayed correctly.
>
> Why ? Not meant to sound aggressive, but seems a very
> odd assertion, IMHO. Editors are for changing things;
> why would you need a program intended to change things
> just to
Keith J. Schultz wrote:
So, Unicode needs an editor to be displayed correctly.
Why ? Not meant to sound aggressive, but seems a very
odd assertion, IMHO. Editors are for changing things;
why would you need a program intended to change things
just to display Unicode ?
Now, for the youngste
Hi Everybody,
Slow down a bit. Sorry if I sound high headed here!
There seems to be a misunderstanding what exactly a
PLAIN TEXT FILE is.
Computing has evolved since I started using computers.
When I started out a plain text file was a file just holding
7-bit ASCII or EBCDIC, or the like witho
Am 13.11.2011 um 23:14 schrieb Ross Moore:
> Is there a EUR 0,01 coin? :-)
Yes, 1 ¢ and 2 ¢ coins exist.
--
Mit friedvollen Grüßen
Pete
When Richard Stallman goes to the loo, he core dumps.
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information
Hi all,
On 14/11/2011, at 7:55 AM, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> Before typing a document one should think what will be the purpose of
> it. If the only purpose is to have it typeset by (La)TeX, I would just
> use well known macros and control symbols (~, $, &, %, ^, _). If the
> text should be stored i
2011/11/13 Philip TAYLOR :
>
>
> Tobias Schoel wrote:
>>
>> Now, that the practicability is cleared, let's come back to the
>> philosophical part:
>
> Actually, I think this is the practical/pragmatic part,
> but let's carry on none the less ...
>>
>> Should =u00a0 be active and treated as ~ by de
Tobias Schoel wrote:
Now, that the practicability is cleared, let's come back to the
philosophical part:
Actually, I think this is the practical/pragmatic part,
but let's carry on none the less ...
Should =u00a0 be active and treated as ~ by default? Just like
u202f and u2009 should be act
Now, that the practicability is cleared, let's come back to the
philosophical part:
Should =u00a0 be active and treated as ~ by default? Just like
u202f and u2009 should be active and treated as \, and \,\hspace{0pt}?
Where would such a default take place:
- XeTeX engine
- XeLaTeX format
- s
On 11/13/2011 11:09 AM, Tobias Schoel wrote:
How much text flow control mechanism should be done by none-ASCII
characters? Unicode has different codepoints for signs with the same
meaning but different text flow control (space vs. non-break space). So
text flow could be controled via Unicode code
Am 13.11.2011 20:25, schrieb Zdenek Wagner:
2011/11/13 Tobias Schoel:
Am 13.11.2011 12:35, schrieb Zdenek Wagner:
2011/11/13:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011, Petr Tomasek wrote:
make ~ not active when writing my own macros because it contradicts
the Unicode standard...)
Isn't it just as much a
2011/11/13 Tobias Schoel :
>
>
> Am 13.11.2011 12:35, schrieb Zdenek Wagner:
>>
>> 2011/11/13:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011, Petr Tomasek wrote:
make ~ not active when writing my own macros because it contradicts
the Unicode standard...)
>>>
>>> Isn't it just as much a "contradiction"
One option would be to colour-code them, but I was
more interested in the philosophy than the implementation.
** Phil.
Not in every case. How would you visually differentiate between all the
white space characters (space vs. non-break space, thin space (u2009)
vs. narrow no-break space
Am 13.11.2011 18:16, schrieb Philip TAYLOR:
Tobias Schoel wrote:
One opinion says, that using (La)TeX is programming. Consequently, each
character used should be visually well distinguishable. This is not the
case with all the Unicode white space characters.
Is that not a function of the
Tobias Schoel wrote:
One opinion says, that using (La)TeX is programming. Consequently, each
character used should be visually well distinguishable. This is not the
case with all the Unicode white space characters.
Is that not a function of the editor used ? Is it not valid
for an editor to
Am 13.11.2011 12:35, schrieb Zdenek Wagner:
2011/11/13:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011, Petr Tomasek wrote:
make ~ not active when writing my own macros because it contradicts
the Unicode standard...)
Isn't it just as much a "contradiction" of the "standard" for \ to do
what \ does? I don't think tha
2011/11/13 :
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011, Petr Tomasek wrote:
>> make ~ not active when writing my own macros because it contradicts
>> the Unicode standard...)
>
> Isn't it just as much a "contradiction" of the "standard" for \ to do
> what \ does? I don't think that is a good way to decide what TeX's
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011, Petr Tomasek wrote:
> make ~ not active when writing my own macros because it contradicts
> the Unicode standard...)
Isn't it just as much a "contradiction" of the "standard" for \ to do
what \ does? I don't think that is a good way to decide what TeX's
input format should be
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 06:36:47PM +0100, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> 2011/11/12 Petr Tomasek :
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 03:26:36PM +0100, Le Farfadet Spatial wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello everybody out there!
> >>
> >> On 11/11/2011 15:11, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> >> >How does XeTeX convert \language to the
2011/11/12 Petr Tomasek :
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 03:26:36PM +0100, Le Farfadet Spatial wrote:
>>
>> Hello everybody out there!
>>
>> On 11/11/2011 15:11, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
>> >How does XeTeX convert \language to the rules
>>
>> As far as I know, the language is a parameter transmitted to pack
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 03:26:36PM +0100, Le Farfadet Spatial wrote:
>
> Hello everybody out there!
>
> On 11/11/2011 15:11, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> >How does XeTeX convert \language to the rules
>
> As far as I know, the language is a parameter transmitted to packages
> that have different rule
2011/11/12 Ulrike Fischer :
> Am Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:33:20 +0100 schrieb Zdenek Wagner:
>
>> I still do not understand the internal mechanism. I know how
>> punctuation is handled in French, the category of a few characters is
>> set to 13 and defined as some macros. But how can XeTeX regognize
>>
Am Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:33:20 +0100 schrieb Zdenek Wagner:
> I still do not understand the internal mechanism. I know how
> punctuation is handled in French, the category of a few characters is
> set to 13 and defined as some macros. But how can XeTeX regognize
> whether the space token with catego
2011/11/11 Le Farfadet Spatial :
>
> Hello everybody out there!
>
> On 11/11/2011 15:11, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
>>
>> How does XeTeX convert \language to the rules
>
> As far as I know, the language is a parameter transmitted to packages that
> have different rules depending on the language used. It
Hello everybody out there!
On 11/11/2011 15:11, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
How does XeTeX convert \language to the rules
As far as I know, the language is a parameter transmitted to packages
that have different rules depending on the language used. It also
affects, for instance, the way punctuati
2011/11/11 Le Farfadet Spatial :
>
> Hello everybody out there!
>
> On 11/11/2011 13:55, Oleg Parashchenko wrote:
>>
>> how does XeTeX process the unicode symbol \u00a0 (non-breaking space),
>>
>> * just like any other glyph, or
>> * there is some hidden magic to interpret the symbol as a space wit
Hello everybody out there!
On 11/11/2011 13:55, Oleg Parashchenko wrote:
how does XeTeX process the unicode symbol \u00a0 (non-breaking space),
* just like any other glyph, or
* there is some hidden magic to interpret the symbol as a space with
special properties?
I have processed by mistake
Hello,
how does XeTeX process the unicode symbol \u00a0 (non-breaking space),
* just like any other glyph, or
* there is some hidden magic to interpret the symbol as a space with
special properties?
--
Oleg Parashchenko olpa@ http://uucode.com/
http://uucode.com/blog/ XML, TeX, Python, Mac,
72 matches
Mail list logo
