Re: Preaching DSSSL (Re: using LOUT)

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Valeriy E. Ushakov writes:
 > Windows-59 Lout or Windows-Not-There Lout or whatever.  It just
 > simpler to distribute MS-DOS version because it will run under all
 > these beasts, isn't it.
not necessarily efficiently. the aim of the jadelout is considerable
efficiency and ease of use, after all. i'd hate for it to pop up a
black box while processing.

i am not just being perverse raising this. i have bitter experence
persuadng people to use TeX, who fall about laughing when you say
"um, er, you have to install these files, and alter your PATH, and run
a batch process..."; Lout wont be that different, and a packaged up
Windiozerelease with a setup.exe makes the masses happy. all they need
then is bread.

 > Where can I learn more about font selection schemes deployed in
 > Unicode TeX.
um, reading the Omega documentation, such as it is

 > Where can I read more about Unicode TeX.  In particular how it
 > performs the mapping from codes to glyphs.  Most Tibetan fonts that I
you can follow www.ens.fr/omega, and try and read the papers published
in TUGboat

 > know will need a sequence of codes to be mapped to a single glyph
 > (vertical consonant cluster).  Most of them also have sometimes up to
 > a dozen of slightly different shapes for a vowel `u' whith diffrent
 > shapes used after different consonant clusters for better look.  How
 > this kind of dependencies are specified with Unicode TeX?
it has a concept of transformation processes where this sort of work
is done. the authors have worked through the details of Arabic a,
Hebrew and so on, and it sounds at first cut (my knowledge of tibetan
being zero) that the facilities yiou need should be tere. the authors
would be very interested in talking to you about any Tibetan-specific
issues.

its getting off lout, tho.

Sebastian