Dominik Wujastyk wrote:
> I'm not sure what more to say, Phil. My comments arise out of my > > orientation to end-users (including myself), not the internals of the > OT > language or the "you can do anything" strengths of TeX. I'm > interested in > transparent terminology that makes it obvious to a > user, for example, which > hyphenation table is active at any > particular moment in a document. OK, this I understand and accept. But if an open standard such as the OTF specification uses terms such as "language" and "script" with specific and well-defined meanings, is it helpful to end-users to then re-define those terms within an adjunct package such as Polyglossia or Babel ? Just as with Unicode, or the TEI, is it not better to stick with well-established and standardised usage rather than invent a (La)TeX-specific usage that can (IMHO) only lead to even worse confusion ? ** Phil.
-------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
