Return-Path: Received: from ic.vrn.ru ([195.98.64.65] verified) by vsu.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with ESMTP-TLS id 946341 for CyrTeX-en@vsu.ru; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 21:59:47 +0400 Received: from ams.org (sun06.ams.org [130.44.1.6]) by ic.vrn.ru (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g5NHvTc55285 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 21:57:29 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from bnb@ams.org) Received: from localhost (bnb@localhost) by ams.org (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5NHgMvS019798 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 13:42:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 13:42:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Barbara Beeton To: CyrTeX-en@vsu.ru Subject: Re: Russian/Polish/German...without switching Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 1.0 (http://www.roaringpenguin.com/mimedefang/) i'd like to comment on just one thing that larry has said regarding coding: Somewhere in unicode there are regions reserved for private use; why not TUG use? Standards are a good thing; lets have enough of them! Russian might encode on "0700--"07FF and French on "2100--"21FF (placement motivated by well known international telephone prefixes). ... the unicode "private use area" is in the "Exxx-"Fxxx range (but not all of it; however, i'm not going to take the time to look it up). cyrillic is in "04xx; "07xx is syriac. "21xx is arrows. i've just spent several years working with the unicode technical committee getting a reasonably full complement of math symbols (including lots more arrows) into unicode. (you can see the results in the unicode 3.2 charts on the unicode site, at http://www.unicode.org ; the press release announcing version 3.2 is at http://www.unicode.org/press/press_release-3.2.html .) please don't muddy the waters by even thinking about using code ranges that already have something useful defined in unicode. the unicode values are being used in the development of fonts to bring math to the web. (see the site http://www.stixfonts.org , and for some of the history of the unicode work, http://www.ams.org/STIX/ .) we all know why don knuth built tex the way he did; when he was developing tex, unicode didn't exist, and the existing coding standards were inadequate for what he needed, never mind the limitations on computer memory. things have changed. this isn't a matter of my personal preferences, but recognition of the fact that if you use a recognized code, you greatly increase the chances that you'll be able to communicate with other people on subjects of common interest. standards *are* a good thing. before devising another one, please take a look at what's there already. -- bb