I'm not sure what more to say, Phil. My comments arise out of my orientation to end-users (including myself), not the internals of the OT language or the "you can do anything" strengths of TeX. I'm interested in transparent terminology that makes it obvious to a user, for example, which hyphenation table is active at any particular moment in a document.
The fact that Script=Gujarati means slightly different things in different macros, for example, as Ulrika pointed out, is extremely unhelpful to serious authors who aren't TeX hackers. Best, Dominik -- Professor Dominik Wujastyk <http://ualberta.academia.edu/DominikWujastyk> , Singhmar Chair in Classical Indian Society and Polity , Department of History and Classics <http://historyandclassics.ualberta.ca/> , University of Alberta, Canada . South Asia at the U of A: sas.ualberta.ca On 16 February 2017 at 10:57, Philip Taylor <p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Dominik Wujastyk wrote: > > Yes, and it's this very assumption that is unhelpful, Phil, and leads to > confusion. > > Now /I/ am confused (a not-uncommon state as my 70th birthday approaches > with ever-increasing speed). Are you saying (a) that my assumption is a > common assumption, but is wrong (in which case, what /does/ Polyglossia > mean by "\sanskritfont); or (b) that my assumption is correct (and if so, > in what way is it unhelpful ?). I understand that one may wish to set > Sanskrit in a number of fonts within a single text, but TeX is a dynamic > language and one can (surely) re-define "\sanskritfont" just as often as > one chooses, can one not ? In my own work, I routinely re-define (e.g.,) > "\romanfont", "\italicfont" and so on any number of times, to reflect what > the intended expansion of those control sequences are at any particular > point in the document. > > More importantly (IMHO) do you agree that the terminology originates not > within Polyglossia but within the Opentype specification, in which case > (just as with Unicode) we must surely learn to live with it rather than > rail against its deficiencies. > > Also, it's common for academics to use multiple scripts for Sanskrit > within a single document (typically Devanagari and Latin transliteration). > > I /think/ that this is covered by what I wrote above, but if I am wrong, > please correct me. > > ** Phil. >
-------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex