From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/2614
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Robert F. Beeger" <5beeger@informatik.uni-hamburg.de>
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context
Subject: Re: Wanting to learn plain TeX
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 17:10:35 +0200
Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20000906165719.00b24670@rzdspc1.informatik.uni-hamburg.de>
References: <4.3.2.7.0.20000904194500.00b207c0@rzdspc1.informatik.uni-h amburg.de>
	<3.0.6.32.20000831140354.0165ed10@pop.wxs.nl>
	<4.3.2.7.0.20000831130011.00b1b9a0@pop.btx.dtag.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035393393 10305 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 17:16:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:16:33 +0000 (UTC)
Original-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000904224547.0086b570@pop.wxs.nl>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:2614
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:2614

Hello!

At 22:45 04.09.00 +0200, Hans Hagen wrote:
>There is a russian version of the texbook, maybe even japanese, but chinese
>... i don't know. There are some chinese names in his books however. The
>good old tex book has no chinese, so that simplies it a bit -)

Good joke!

>Context does chinese and will do it better some day soon. Looking at the
>glyphs will convince you that chinese is worth looking at, but I admit that
>I cannot read it. But, Wang Lei is working on a tutorial.

Just because of being curious about this one: How can this work? I remember 
of having heard once that the writen Chinese language consists of 2000000 
or even more symbols, of which each one stands for a word. Are Unicode 
characters used here or a special mapping from ASCII to Chinese. I also ask 
myself what sort of keyboard the chinese guys use when they want to type 
some text in Chinese.

>The nice thing about the tex book is that you can read it many times and
>the more you know about tex, the more new things you will discover. Unless
>you want to write your own macro package, you can safely skip half of it,
>unless you want to get a feeling about what is involved.

I think I'll try to get a look behind the scenery and maybe read the 
texbook from cover to cover.
You and some of the other guys on this list convinced me to give it a try.

So: thanks again to all of you.

Robert