On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 22:34, Yves Codet wrote: > > Le 21 nov. 2010 à 10:22, Manuel B. a écrit : > >> But I don't know how far one can go here. While IAST is meant >> exclusivly for Sanskrit-transliteration (I know that it's used for >> Pali also, but in a slightly different way), ISO 15919 contains far >> more diacritics, than are needed for the transliteration of Sanskrit. >> It's rather meant as a transliteration of many or most Indian >> languages. Should it be duplicated then in every hyphenation pattern >> of every language in question? >> >> 2) That might be a stupid question, but aren't hyphennation patterns >> for most Abugida-scripts more or less the same? That means the >> hyphennation is rather script dependend, than language dependend. Lots >> of hyphennation patterns have to be duplicated, if they are ordered by >> language. While one could have a hyphen-indic.tex instead. > > Arthur and Mojca are better qualified than I to answer those questions. What > comes to mind is that such a "total" hyphenation file might rapidly become > difficult to maintain, all the more so as it would require several > maintainers. Besides, some languages might require special rules, exceptions > for instance, which could be unwanted in another language using the same > script. > > Arthur and Mojca, what do you think?
Hello, Exactly at this point we are discussing whether we should use one-pattern-per-language or one-pattern-per-script for Ethiopic script that has been requested recently on the XeTeX mailing list, but for Ethiopic scripts we have made the first version of patterns by ourselves, so at least I know exactly what is there (which is not the case for Indic scripts). In case of Indic scripts, all I did was fetch the scripts from OpenOffice and repackaged them for use in TeX. There might be a reason for language-dependent ordering in OpenOffice since it applies patterns based on language. Having a single file for patterns in OOo would mean duplicating that same file ten times, I guess. In TeX one can reuse the same file for multiple languages more easily. >From my perspective we are the coordinators & collectors of hyphenation patterns. We are not specialists for every language that is being maintained in our repository which means that we still need someone to create the patterns for the language he/she masters. If Indic scripts hyphenate in the same way in all the languages that use the script, then in principle I have nothing against having a single file that would cover them all, but only if that really brings some benefit and in that case probably somebody else should do it. Does anyone require a language that is not present in repository, but would be covered with a "generic Indic script" hyphenation rules? If (for example) the author of OpenOffice files would prepare and maintain the file and thus guarantee compatible behaviour with OOo, that would be the best option. But first of all the question: what would be the biggest benefit? New languages? The rest of thread was talking about Sanskrit. Mojca PS: if any other language specialist could offer some more answers about Ethiopic scripts, feel free to reply to me and Arthur off-list. -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
