On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 02:27:03AM -0800, Chris Travers wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Petr Tomasek toma...@etf.cuni.cz 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
2011/11/14 Mike Maxwell maxw...@umiacs.umd.edu:
On 11/14/2011 4:56 PM, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
2011/11/14 Mike Maxwellmaxw...@umiacs.umd.edu:
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
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
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
2011/11/14 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk:
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
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
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Petr Tomasek toma...@etf.cuni.cz 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.:
Chris Travers wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Petr Tomasektoma...@etf.cuni.cz 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
2011/11/14 Petr Tomasek toma...@etf.cuni.cz:
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
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Chris Travers wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Petr Tomasektoma...@etf.cuni.cz 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
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,
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
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 program
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Peter Dyballa peter_dyba...@web.de 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
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
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
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 space characters (number 32) that
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk 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);
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
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
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
things if
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 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
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Keith J. Schultz keithjschu...@web.de 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
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, but
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 the
point
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
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
2011/11/14 Keith J. Schultz keithjschu...@web.de:
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
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
2011/11/14 Keith J. Schultz keithjschu...@web.de:
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
On 11/14/2011 5:38 AM, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
2011/11/14 Petr Tomasektoma...@etf.cuni.cz:
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
2011/11/14 Mike Maxwell maxw...@umiacs.umd.edu:
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*
On 11/14/2011 4:56 PM, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
2011/11/14 Mike Maxwellmaxw...@umiacs.umd.edu:
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,
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
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.
--
2011/11/13 msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca:
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
Am 13.11.2011 12:35, schrieb Zdenek Wagner:
2011/11/13msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca:
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 \
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
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
2011/11/13 Tobias Schoel liesdieda...@googlemail.com:
Am 13.11.2011 12:35, schrieb Zdenek Wagner:
2011/11/13msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca:
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
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
Now, that the practicability is cleared, let's come back to the
philosophical part:
Should nbsp=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
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 nbsp=u00a0 be active and treated as ~ by default? Just like
u202f and u2009 should be
2011/11/13 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk:
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 nbsp=u00a0 be active and treated as
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 in a
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
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,
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
49 matches
Mail list logo
