[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: @documentencoding and TeX
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: @documentencoding and TeX |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:10:06 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
>>> "Stepan" == Stepan Kasal <address@hidden> writes:
Hi!
Cc'ed to François, since recode is concerned.
> Hello,
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 10:24:12AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
>> It is my understanding that all the outputs properly understand
>> @documentencoding except TeX. Since TeX is behind texi2dvi, and since
>> recode is fairly common, at least on the machine where LC_ALL != C, I
>> suggest the following patch. It does considerably simplify my file,
>> until proper TeX support is implemented.
> I see several problems with recode:
> 1) latin1..texinfo handles \"a (the 8bit char) correctly, but it doesn't
> handle other characters, eg. \'a
Indeed. But at least in my language in it is not really a problem.
Recode should be fixed though.
> 2) latin2..texinfo is not implemented properly; it seems that it does
> latin1..texinfo anyway (similar for latin2..TeX)
To be fixed I guess.
> 3) it's not an active project, and it's not maintained.
I didn't know about this. If that's true, that's too bad: recode
saved my life a million times.
> Aditionally, your approach of changing the 8bit chars to their 7bit
> representations (like @"a) doesn't produce nice manuals, at least
> currently. TeX then uses 7bit fonts, and the words containing diacritics
> cannot be hyphenated.
As I said, that's a workaround until proper support is implemented in
Texinfo. In the meanwhile, this hack is quite effective, and
significantly improves the life of several people here.
> So, at the current stage, I'd simply admit that the TeX texinfo backend
> doesn't support non-ASCII encodings.
> I don't think it's worth it to put your patch it.
> (But, of course, it's up to Karl to decide.)
I beg to differ. We have been waiting for latin 1 for *years*. I
have put my trust in Texinfo many years ago telling people that we
should use it for our manuals, do prove me wrong.
I can understand that the right implementation is hard to make, but
heck, is that a reason to reject something that works? I'm less
interested in the quality of the design than in the result per se.
> A related issue:
> I'd like to have l2..TeX or l2..ASCII conversion (I use a perl script
> called cstocs for LANG=cs currently), but it seems to be hard to achieve.
> The recode sources seem a bit complicated to me, and the author doesn't
> want to work on it, a new generation program is promised, to be prototyped
> in python, ... but no progress for a few years, IIRC.
That does sound like an FP project indeed :)
> The iconv program from glibc doesn't handle some mappings well. It
> doesn't have support for TeX encoding, and it is not able to "strip
> diacritics."
> I had recently experienced problems with ``recode -f utf8..xx'': it
> deleted also a few characters after the intranslatable one.
> iconv -c works reliably in this situation.
> So I cannot decide which project should be the standard recoding program,
> which I could contribute to.
> The fact that GNU recode was renamed to Free recode brings even more
> confusion.
What confusion?
Re: @documentencoding and TeX, Karl Berry, 2004/08/25
Re: @documentencoding and TeX, Stepan Kasal, 2004/08/25