Re: [9fans] [RFC] fonts and unicode/utf [TeX]

[tlaronde@polynum.com]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:51:53AM -0400, Karljurgen Feuerherm wrote:
> [...]
>
> >But starting with "modern fonts", "modern system", "archaic" and the
> like, it's like starting with: "only Adolf Hitler would still use not
> Unicode fonts".
>
> Looking here: http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=xetex_faq ( http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=xetex_faq ) I cannot find this; you'll have to help me out.
> [...]

It was not about the XeTeX FAQ this time, it was about this thread.

When I first said: OK, I take the bull by the horns, I will redo from
scratch a TeX distribution, I heard: "current TeX on Plan9, even
if obsolete, is enough..."

When I announced the job was done with the core of TeX, answer: "Nobody
uses TeX: everybody uses LaTeX; so it is almost useless." [This is my
special favorite!]

When I saw that the TFM provided with recent TeX distributions provide
latin1 glyphes but not at the latin1 (i.e. Unicode) positions, I decided
it was an historical artefact and was inconsistent. Then my first
message and the avalanche about "teaching TeX _modern_ fonts" etc.

For me _these_ arguments about modern, archaic etc. are Godwin points.
A vast majority of contemporary mathematicians could read the "archaic"
Euclid to learn, for example, that Euclid has never written that "a line
is composed of points" even less "a line is composed of an infinity of
points".  And they should confer this with the fifth book. Because if
the Greeks have not said that, there is probably a reason why...

So back to the technic: as far as TeX is concerned, there is input
(provided by an user, normally) leading to layout rendered by a dvi
driver. A font interacts with the user input by providing some
facilities (ligatures); since these facilities can be added to TeX view
of the font (TFM), without even changing the fonts as viewed by the
drivers, I don't see why they should be discarded.

Furthermore, I don't see why some special glyphes put, in plain
TeX conventions, in ASCII control positions should not be added to
TeX view of a font (TFM).

I've read in a hurry the directory layout of XeTeX, the WEB change file
and the FAQ, just in order to have an idea about what was going on and
a rough idea of the work needed to import it in kerTeX. Hence my mistake
about believing "modern fonts" have thrown away _every ligature_.
I'm relieved to see that I was wrong on this one.

But I would probably have read the whole more coolly if people have not
used some arguments.

I don't despise XeTeX. Nor Unicode. And I will take Unicode as is. But I
will take TeX conventions as is too, since I'm working on TeX, and not
another formatting system; since these conventions are confined to the
ASCII subrange and only diverging from ASCII for the not glyph
positions. I still fail to see what's the big deal?

--
        Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
                      http://www.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C