On 4 October 2010 12:25, Keith J. Schultz keithjschu...@web.de wrote:
TeX was developed as a subset of SGML or if you wish clone, variant,
etc.
This is completely wrong, and anachronistic. SGML was born long after TeX
and LaTeX.
It is true that LaTeX's syntax owes a debt to Scribe
Am 05.10.2010 um 12:46 schrieb Dominik Wujastyk:
This is completely wrong, and anachronistic. SGML was born long
after TeX
and LaTeX.
You probably mean that ISO standard on SGML from 1986 (8879). There is
none for any TeX dialect...
William W. Tunnicliffe had the idea of SGML at least
TeX was developed as a subset of SGML or if you wish clone, variant, etc.
TeX is a declarative and procedural programming language. What is more
important it is dynamic! That is it is possible to change the
definitions
of the
macros used while the program is running.
Hi All,
I chime in here.
This is all OT.
At the risk of being mark as a TROLL, here goes.
Evidently, the participants of this discussion come from varying
backgrounds and the terminology is getting all messed up.
1) structure of a document
Hi Everybody,
I am very sorry for starting this discussion of on OT route.
Whether to use Word or TeX for one purpose the other is very
philosophical.
Each has their strengths and deficiencies. A discussion that does not
belong here
and there is no real
10...@googlemail.com 099c5363-8fa4-43bd-bc2e-f981c1da6...@web.de
291385.69446...@web110116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
Message-ID: 3b7d79f69c7aa8d3caf00316e53fa...@umiacs.umd.edu
X-Sender: maxw...@umiacs.umd.edu
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.3.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
Sent from my iPad
On 05/10/2010, at 4:13 AM, maxwell maxw...@umiacs.umd.edu wrote:
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 06:22:13 -0700 (PDT), Apostolos Syropoulos
asyropou...@yahoo.com wrote:
[not sure who is being quoted here:]
TeX was developed as a subset of SGML
It's pretty clear that Keith meant
As for the '' line, the first version of TeX was implemented in SAIL,
which was an Algol-like programming language. The current version is
So what? I do not understand what's the point you are trying to make.
A language implementor can freely choose any existing language to implement
a new
O.K. I am can not remember where I got the part where TeX was based on
SGML. Maybe, I have the context wrong maybe it was LaTeX. It was somewhere
in the depths of CTAN, though.
regards
Keith
Am 04.10.2010 um 19:13 schrieb maxwell:
10...@googlemail.com
Philipp Stephani wrote:
Here (in German):
http://www.golatex.de/latex-mathe-font-fuer-bildschirm-t3664.html
Although I have to admit that in that case the quality is more related to the
font and not so much to the typesetting. But see Ulrik's article for an
overview of the improvements
Philipp Stephani wrote:
In TeX you cannot state the structure because TeX is a low-level
typesetting system that offers only a few low-level primitives
and a macro language.
If TeX offered only a few low-level primitives, I would have
been willing to accept that your argument might have
Philipp Stephani wrote:
Yes, but is that really structure? Of course it's basically a question of
definition, but if you look at other technologies that are supposed to be able to express
structure (e.g. XML), then you'll find data modeling, schema, transformation and querying
languages,
Am 03.10.2010 12:43, schrieb Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd):
Philipp Stephani wrote:
Yes, but is that really structure? Of course it's basically a
question of definition, but if you look at other technologies that are
supposed to be able to express structure (e.g. XML), then you'll find
A very good source is Murray Sargent's blog:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/murrays/
e.g. this (quite technical) post:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/murrays/archive/2006/09/13/752206.aspx
The new font tables enable one to automatically position subscripts and
superscripts horizontally better than
On 2 Oct 2010, at 18:56, Philipp Stephani wrote:
Am 01.10.2010 um 00:49 schrieb Elliott Roper:
As far a documentation is concerned look at the LaTeX Companion for
packages.
..and that's where I get a bit taken aback. The book arrives last Saturday.
I head for the Index for the bits I
On 2 Oct 2010, at 19:12, Philipp Stephani wrote:
Am 30.09.2010 um 20:12 schrieb Elliott Roper:
What I'm lacking is a set of beginner documents that ties all the TeX zoo
together. Do I have to read source to find the definitive answer to which
package has what package as a pre-requisite?
Am 01.10.2010 um 08:25 schrieb Tobias Schoel:
Hi,
of course, any document has structure and formatting, even plain txt-files
have. That's not the point. The point I made, and you wrote it yourself:
- In TeX you explicitly state the structure/format.
In TeX you cannot state the structure
Am 01.10.2010 um 00:49 schrieb Elliott Roper:
As far a documentation is concerned look at the LaTeX Companion for packages.
..and that's where I get a bit taken aback. The book arrives last Saturday. I
head for the Index for the bits I really need.
XeTeX - nada
fontspec - zip
Unicode -
Am 01.10.2010 um 00:14 schrieb Peter Dyballa:
Am 30.09.2010 um 00:42 schrieb Alan Munn:
And I deal with a broad range of students at a major US research university.
U.S. American students are not a gauge for Earth's youth.
I didn't talk about American students. What I described was
Am 30.09.2010 um 20:12 schrieb Elliott Roper:
What I'm lacking is a set of beginner documents that ties all the TeX zoo
together. Do I have to read source to find the definitive answer to which
package has what package as a pre-requisite?
Yes, and that won't change until LaTeX becomes a
Am 30.09.2010 um 17:33 schrieb Axel Kielhorn:
The attractiveness to using LaTeX to exchange documents (in the past,
and to a large extent, even now) is that you can be sure that the
source file can be read by your computer, even if you don't have the
same fonts or language support (EOL and
Am 30.09.2010 um 16:01 schrieb Keith J. Schultz:
With Tex et al. the structure/formatting commands are in document verbatim.
When using TeX et al. you are more aware of what you are doing
I don't know if that is really true. It's relatively easy to find out the
current style of a
Le 02/10/2010 21:22, Alan Munn a écrit :
On Oct 2, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Philipp Stephani wrote:
Am 30.09.2010 um 09:36 schrieb Tobias Schoel:
Hi,
there are three kinds of people who should learn TeXCo:
- those who absolutely need TeX, because no other system let's them
produce the documents
Am 02.10.2010 um 21:52 schrieb Paul Isambert:
Le 02/10/2010 21:22, Alan Munn a écrit :
On Oct 2, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Philipp Stephani wrote:
Am 30.09.2010 um 09:36 schrieb Tobias Schoel:
Hi,
there are three kinds of people who should learn TeXCo:
- those who absolutely need TeX,
Le 02/10/2010 22:36, Philipp Stephani a écrit :
Am 02.10.2010 um 21:52 schrieb Paul Isambert:
Le 02/10/2010 21:22, Alan Munn a écrit :
On Oct 2, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Philipp Stephani wrote:
Am 30.09.2010 um 09:36 schrieb Tobias Schoel:
Hi,
there are three kinds of people who should learn
Philipp Stephani wrote:
Indeed I've already seen questions in LaTeX forums on how to achieve Word's
math typesetting quality in LaTeX.
Could you please cite such a question ?
Philip Taylor
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information,
On 10/2/2010 2:47 PM, Philipp Stephani wrote:
Typographers generally use systems with better typographical support than TeX
can offer, e.g. InDesign or QuarkXPress.
It may well be that ID or Quark are better for advertisements, magazines
with lots of big glossy photos, and such. But
Hi,
of course, any document has structure and formatting, even plain
txt-files have. That's not the point. The point I made, and you wrote it
yourself:
- In TeX you explicitly state the structure/format.
And going one step further:
- In TeX you explicitly state the structure.
- In TeX
Hi Tobias,
I see where you are coming from.
But, your basic point are here OT. I will mail you off list as
this discussion though interesting is of mcuh interest to this
list that education of students.
regards
Keith.
Am 01.10.2010 um
hi,
that is correct. but it's also part of the discussion, whom lshort is aimed
at and what role xelatex plays in lshort for that specific reason.
as the discussion seems to have come to the end and a result has been
achieved, i think this thread can be closed.
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:25 AM,
a list.
That's what I'm whinging about. That's what the XeTeX flavour of lshort needs
to have in it.
There is no special LaTeX for XeTeX.
90% of what you will find in the companion will work.
It took some time to figure the graphics drivers out.
PStricks works probably as good as in pdfLaTeX.
TikZ
Am 01.10.2010 um 15:55 schrieb Axel Kielhorn:
Do you have a guide that explains how to turn a pdflatex document
into a xelatex document?
Something like this preamble?
\documentclass[11pt,final]{article}
\usepackage{ifpdf,ifxetex}
\usepackage{graphicx} %[dvipdfmx]
Hi,
there are three kinds of people who should learn TeXCo:
- those who absolutely need TeX, because no other system let's them
produce the documents they have to (all this linguistis and co. [don't
take offense, I have no idea of the professions around this topic])
- those who can use other
Hear, hear. https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTIzNzI2MTY5 The voice of
reason.
There's really no point in editor-wars. As Phil rightly says, the choice of
editing program is intensely personal. It's often determined by all sorts
of factors that aren't obviously logical. Much the best thing
Please, please take this discussion off this list. This is not the
appropriate forum for it.
Dominik
On 30 September 2010 10:50, Keith J. Schultz keithjschu...@web.de wrote:
Hi,
Tobias bist du des Wahnsinns!! (Sorry, Tobias way over-board here)
I hate to say this nobody actually needs
Hi All,
I chime in here again. First, I give you some of my background.
I have been around computer for 30 years, since the advent of the PC
Apple IIe (my first) and the IBM PC( The 386 my second).
I have work with Wordstar, Word, and (La)Tex when they were in their
infancy.
I have studied
2010/9/30 Mike Maxwell maxw...@umiacs.umd.edu:
On 9/29/2010 9:29 PM, Herbert Schulz wrote:
I just like well organized articles with good hierarchy although I
used to (before I retired) do all my exams in LaTeX with some custom
macros.
I think you're quite unusual.
… but in a good way! :)
I do not get it. A text document is per say structured one way or the other.
Tex-documents do not add anymore structure to the text than any other
WYSIWYG-Program.
With WYSIWYG the structure of the document is not visible in the form of
command codes, but are represented directly on your screen.
Am 30.09.2010 um 02:39 schrieb Andy Lin:
lshort needs to be updated, not just because it's missing sections on
Unicode and XeTeX. It's also working under the assumption that people
will *need* to use the command line in order to process a document.
This should be a concern to anyone who's
On 9/30/2010 8:33 AM, Axel Kielhorn wrote:
The main problem is that lshort is a latin1 document, thus it is almost
impossible (yes, there is arabtex and CJK) to show examples.
well... we are on the xetex mailing list: save the source as utf-8
unicode and then compile it with xelatex? =)
On 30 Sep 2010, at 18:11, Gerrit Glabbart wrote:
Am 30.09.2010 um 16:01 schrieb Keith J. Schultz:
snip
If you take the
time to look at a Word-file(doc or docx) verbatim, you will see the
structure.
Though some of it will not be human discernible.
I'd call that a drawback, wouldn't
Sorry if you got the impression that I had something against TeX or bias
towards WYSIWYG!
My point was basically, Any document has structure and formatting.
TeX does not enforce structure. In TeX you explicitly state the
structure/format.
TeX use to be the most powerful typesetting system
I have set lshort for german in xetex and use some system fonts.
But the code is old and it does not use unicode or the math styles for
xetex. so alot of work to do. I not planing on converting it just use for
experimenting.
regards
Keith.
Am 30.09.2010 um 18:47 schrieb Michiel
Hi Elliot,
Welcome aboard.
First , if your on a Mac take a look at TeXShop, if not look at TeXWorks,
it might be more familiar to you. It might be eaier that learning E-macs. (your
call).
As far a documentation is concerned look at the LaTeX Companion for packages.
Forget about anything you
Am 30.09.2010 um 00:42 schrieb Alan Munn:
And I deal with a broad range of students at a major US research
university.
U.S. American students are not a gauge for Earth's youth. (Their
number is also too small.) And indeed I more often interact with much
younger people.
--
Greetings
the XeTeX flavour of lshort needs
to have in it.
Doing a resumé? Here's a suggested preamble, and here's pointers to the
documentation of packages explicitly and implicitly invoked. Doing a booklet?
ditto.. Setting Unicode math? Here's what's different. (I found that one
today, so I'm OK) insert Monty
I do not think there should be any specific editor prposed.
Instead a chapter about entering unicode and a few of the
most popular editors and viewers should be listed with a short
run down of the ups and downs.
regards
Keith.
Am 28.09.2010 um 16:20 schrieb Tobias Schoel:
I am neither a beginner nor a dumb user (which do not exist)
but I will not touch Emacs with a ten foot pole.
As far as short cuts and scripts are concerned I have the in
TeXShop. Emacs is even intimidating to the intermediate
developer. Do not get me wrong, it is very powerful and
extendable.
On 29-09-2010 8:33, Keith J. Schultz wrote:
I am neither a beginner nor a dumb user (which do not exist)
but I will not touch Emacs with a ten foot pole.
As far as short cuts and scripts are concerned I have the in
TeXShop. Emacs is even intimidating to the intermediate
developer. Do not get me
Hi,
I wouldn't recommend anything other than kile for linux users. for me it
offers the fastest way of texing.
I tried emacs when we got the task of learning and testing a bit of lisp
in university, but I didn't get the feeling I'm becoming better and
using this program seems to be an
Tobias Schoel wrote:
I wouldn't recommend anything other than kile for linux users. for me it
offers the fastest way of texing.
I tried emacs when we got the task of learning and testing a bit of lisp
in university, but I didn't get the feeling I'm becoming better and
using this program
Am 29.09.2010 um 21:26 schrieb Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd):
Tobias Schoel wrote:
I wouldn't recommend anything other than kile for linux users. for me it
offers the fastest way of texing.
I tried emacs when we got the task of learning and testing a bit of lisp
in university,
Am 29.09.2010 um 23:40 schrieb Philipp Stephani:
reality is approximately as follows: Users who read beginner
documents such as lshort don't want to use TeX, but are forced to do
so by their advisor. They don't want to read discussions about the
pros and cons of various text editors or
Philipp Stephani wrote:
Beginners usually know how to visit web sites
and how to create simple documents in Microsoft Word
OK, so let's teach them how to create Unicode TeX sources using MS Word :-)
Just as an experiment, I tried it; the Save as was the hard part, since
UTF-8 was not
On Sep 29, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Peter Dyballa wrote:
Am 29.09.2010 um 23:40 schrieb Philipp Stephani:
reality is approximately as follows: Users who read beginner
documents such as lshort don't want to use TeX, but are forced to
do so by their advisor. They don't want to read discussions
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 06:42:42PM -0400, Alan Munn wrote:
On Sep 29, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Peter Dyballa wrote:
Am 29.09.2010 um 23:40 schrieb Philipp Stephani:
reality is approximately as follows: Users who read beginner
documents such as lshort don't want to use TeX, but are forced
to
Khaled Hosny wrote:
Well, I myself graduated last month, so...
So ... CONGRATULATIONS, Khaled!
--
United in adoration of Jesus,
fr. michael gilmary, mma
Most Holy Trinity Monastery
67 Dugway Road
Petersham, MA 01366-9725
www.MaroniteMonks.org
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 07:00:35PM -0400, Fr. Michael Gilmary wrote:
Khaled Hosny wrote:
Well, I myself graduated last month, so...
So ... CONGRATULATIONS, Khaled!
Thank you :) (though this was not the point :) )
--
Khaled Hosny
Arabic localiser and member of Arabeyes.org team
On Sep 29, 2010, at 6:53 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 06:42:42PM -0400, Alan Munn wrote:
On Sep 29, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Peter Dyballa wrote:
Am 29.09.2010 um 23:40 schrieb Philipp Stephani:
reality is approximately as follows: Users who read beginner
documents such as
is a very important document, I'm not convinced that
it's necessarily the right place to go into a detailed explanation
about XeTeX or Unicode. Considering the usage that lshort assumes
(math), XeTeX and Unicode introduce relatively little improvement (and
indeed, even with Unicode math support, I can see
On Sep 29, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Alan Munn wrote:
...
Now for some off topic continuation:
I would be willing to bet that *fewer* high school/college students have ever
written a computer program now than 20 or 30 years ago. Instead, what gets
taught (if anything) is how to use (and I use
On 2010-09-30 07:10:07 +0930, Philipp Stephani
st_phil...@yahoo.de said:
[Beginners] don't know what a text file or a text editor is, they have
never heard the word Unicode, and they have never used a programming
language before. What they need are step-
by-step instructions that tell them,
On 9/29/2010 8:39 PM, Andy Lin wrote:
lshort needs to be updated, not just because it's missing sections on
Unicode and XeTeX. It's also working under the assumption that people
will *need* to use the command line in order to process a document.
This should be a concern to anyone who's looked at
On Sep 29, 2010, at 8:17 PM, Will Robertson wrote:
On 2010-09-30 07:10:07 +0930, Philipp Stephani st_phil...@yahoo.de said:
[Beginners] don't know what a text file or a text editor is, they have never
heard the word Unicode, and they have never used a programming language
before. What
On 9/29/2010 9:29 PM, Herbert Schulz wrote:
Take a look athttp://www.tug.org/texshowcase/ and be amazed.
Yes, I've looked at this (and I'm looking at it now), but again I ask:
who should the audience be for this lshort document, and who on the
other hand is not an appropriate target for
Herbert Schulz wrote:
On Sep 29, 2010, at 8:19 PM, Mike Maxwell wrote:
...
Maybe a few people use it to produce greeting cards or wedding invitations or something.
Howdy,
Take a look at http://www.tug.org/texshowcase/ and be amazed. Not that that
is really representative of
, this background made things easier for me. I suspect that
when people who have grown up with only GUIs have a lot of learning to do in
order to understand the whole non-WYSIWYG idea and why someone might want to
do things that way. lshort or our nascent XeTeX opus needs to take this
into account.
David
On Sep 29, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Mike Maxwell wrote:
On 9/29/2010 9:29 PM, Herbert Schulz wrote:
Take a look athttp://www.tug.org/texshowcase/ and be amazed.
Yes, I've looked at this (and I'm looking at it now), but again I ask:
who should the audience be for this lshort document, and who on the
Mike Maxwell wrote:
Maybe: books which need to be nicely typeset (probably not your average
paperback), pamphlets, some kinds of technical articles (particularly
math), multilingual documents where at least one of the languages uses a
complex script, dictionaries.
All of the above: also, anyone
Heh, Michiel and Khaled,
Slow a minute take a deep breath.
No need to get nasty!
TeX and the use thereof is quite intimidated at first.
Their is a big learning curve. That goes also using editors
that work with the TeX-System. One has to learn to use
each properly. This is the biggest reason
Am 28.09.2010 um 02:20 schrieb David J. Perry:
As a relative newcomer to Xe(La)TeX, and proponent of Unicode and
multilingual computing for 15+ years, I was very surprised by the lack of
Unicode support in the TeX world. I think what lshort and other tutorials
need is a very clear and
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 09:50:53AM +0200, Keith J. Schultz wrote:
Heh, Michiel and Khaled,
Slow a minute take a deep breath.
No need to get nasty!
Sorry if I offended any one, non was intended. I just wanted to point
that no one really cares about UI inconsistency (except UI nazis,
of course
Hi,
this discussion does indeed seem to get hot. (Wrong adjective?)
The arguments concerning user expectance and user experience of windows
UI have been exchanged, (The simples solution -- porting kile to windoof
and using a pdf viewer which doesn't grabhold its file -- is of course
out of
Am 28.09.2010 um 16:20 schrieb Tobias Schoel:
Can we now come back to the beginning problem:
Which way of creating unicode-encoded .tex-documents to propose in
lshort?
Using GNU Emacs 23.x – the Unicode Emacs (and any of its variants) –
with its AUCTeX extension. One can either set all
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 Peter Dyballa peter_dyba...@web.de wrote:
Am 28.09.2010 um 16:20 schrieb Tobias Schoel:
Can we now come back to the beginning problem:
Which way of creating unicode-encoded .tex-documents to propose in
lshort?
Using GNU Emacs 23.x √ the Unicode Emacs (and any of its
Am 28.09.2010 um 21:16 schrieb Peter Dyballa:
Am 28.09.2010 um 16:20 schrieb Tobias Schoel:
Can we now come back to the beginning problem:
Which way of creating unicode-encoded .tex-documents to propose in lshort?
Using GNU Emacs 23.x – the Unicode Emacs (and any of its variants) – with
On 28-09-2010 21:44, Philipp Stephani wrote:
Can we now come back to the beginning problem:
Which way of creating unicode-encoded .tex-documents to propose in lshort?
Using GNU Emacs 23.x – the Unicode Emacs (and any of its variants) – with its
AUCTeX extension.
I use the same technology,
Am 28.09.2010 um 22:44 schrieb Philipp Stephani:
Am 28.09.2010 um 21:16 schrieb Peter Dyballa:
Am 28.09.2010 um 16:20 schrieb Tobias Schoel:
Can we now come back to the beginning problem:
Which way of creating unicode-encoded .tex-documents to propose in
lshort?
Using GNU Emacs 23.x –
Windoof user have to be hardened by ugly UI.
What about losedos?
I am (mostly) a Windows user but am neither stupid nor a loser. All OSs
have their imperfections, people have different reasons for what they use,
so let's stay on task here without insults.
David
On Sep 28, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Peter Dyballa wrote:
Am 28.09.2010 um 22:44 schrieb Philipp Stephani:
Am 28.09.2010 um 21:16 schrieb Peter Dyballa:
Am 28.09.2010 um 16:20 schrieb Tobias Schoel:
Can we now come back to the beginning problem:
Which way of creating unicode-encoded
Am 26.09.2010 um 20:11 schrieb Khaled Hosny:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:26:47PM +0200, Marco wrote:
From the text:
Some editors support digraphs, two letters that are combined into on
character. (In \wi{Vim} \texttt{ctrl-k o:} will be transformed into an
\o, \texttt{ctrl-k JA} will
Am 26.09.2010 um 19:36 schrieb Yves Codet:
Hello.
Le 26 sept. 2010 à 15:56, Axel Kielhorn a écrit :
A small detail about your XEsample.tex.
\begin{russian}
могу я Вам чем-л. помочь?% I hope this isn't a terrible curse or an insult,
never trust a dictionary
\end{russian}
It's
Am 26.09.2010 um 19:11 schrieb Michiel Kamermans:
On 9/26/2010 6:56 AM, Axel Kielhorn wrote:
I have to disagree, Vim and emacs (or should that be Emacs?) are available
on Windows as well. (Maybe not used that often.)
While they're available for windows, windows users don't use them.
Am 26.09.2010 um 19:03 schrieb Michiel Kamermans:
This touches on a recent thread on a primer for XeLaTeX, which ended in
http://wiki.xelatex.org/ (which I did not forget about to everyone who might
suspect I have, conferences and moving house are currently robbing me of all
my spare
- Ursprüngliche Mail
Von: Axel Kielhorn a.kielh...@web.de
An: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms xetex@tug.org
Gesendet: Montag, den 27. September 2010, 16:45:18 Uhr
Betreff: Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort
Am 26.09.2010 um 19:11 schrieb Michiel Kamermans
- Ursprüngliche Mail
Von: Axel Kielhorn a.kielh...@web.de
An: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms xetex@tug.org
Gesendet: Montag, den 27. September 2010, 16:46:00 Uhr
Betreff: Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort
Am 26.09.2010 um 18:10 schrieb Peter Dyballa:
Am
On 9/27/2010 7:45 AM, Axel Kielhorn wrote:
Is there any editor with LaTeX support? How about TeXworks? I know
that TeXniccenter does not support Unicode. (This is what lshort
recommends) Another suggestion is LEd but it seems to be pre-Unicode
as well.
I install notepad2 on every windows
Microsoft's recommendations on the UI of programs are only
recommendations. If the task requires it, two windows are fine. This is
what you would have if you previewed in Acrobat Reader anyway -- two
apps but also two windows.
It's been a while, but my memory is that many of Adobe's apps,
On 9/27/2010 11:23 AM, Barry MacKichan wrote:
Microsoft's recommendations on the UI of programs are only
recommendations. If the task requires it, two windows are fine. This
is what you would have if you previewed in Acrobat Reader anyway --
two apps but also two windows.
Yes, they are, and
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:44:08AM -0700, Michiel Kamermans wrote:
On 9/27/2010 11:23 AM, Barry MacKichan wrote:
Microsoft's recommendations on the UI of programs are only
recommendations. If the task requires it, two windows are fine.
This is what you would have if you previewed in Acrobat
David Perry wrote:
Here are a couple of suggestions and some typos to fix:
The main feature is the extended character set; [colon not comma]
Which did you intend, David ? You used a semi-colon (;)
but proposed a colon (:).
Philip Taylor
On 09/25/2010 06:44 PM, Axel Kielhorn wrote:
Hello!
Some weeks ago I suggested getting information about XeTeX into lshort.
Well, here is the first draft.
[...]
I am open for suggestions and corrections (Note that I am not a native speaker.)
Hi Axel,
if you allow me a suggestion I'd rather
Am 26.09.2010 um 06:13 schrieb David Perry:
Some editors, _mainly on Linux,_ support digraphs, two letters that are
combined into one [not on] character. The compose function is hardly ever
used on OS X or Windows;
He doesn't refer to the Compose key, but to editor support, which is
Am 26.09.2010 um 02:43 schrieb Vafa Khalighi:
Exuse us but I think this is too short and does not help anyone.
The mailinglist stripped your attachment about the use of RTL languages.
Since I'm a LGC[1] guy, I won't be able to write anything about RTL or CJK,
except for the fact that it is
Am 26.09.2010 um 01:17 schrieb Peter Dyballa:
Instead of the not included DejaVu font family you might like to mention GNU
Free fonts or Linux Libertine/Biolinum O, which are included in TeX Live.
You have a point here, I'll switch to Linux Libertine.
Some operating systems or application
Am 26.09.2010 um 06:13 schrieb David Perry:
lshort is meant to be, well, short. Having even this much will give those
unacquainted with xe(la)tex some idea of what it's all about, and the
reference to the wiki will (I hope) be a good source of additional
information.
This is meant as
On 9/26/2010 9:56 AM, Axel Kielhorn wrote:
Is the compose feature you mention the same as dead keys?
No. I have read that on some Linux systems one can type a vowel, press
a compose key, and then an accent mark, the result is the vowel with
accent. I myself don't use Linux, so I'm sure
No. I have read that on some Linux systems one can type a vowel, press
a compose key, and then an accent mark, the result is the vowel with
accent.
The actual order is Compose, accent, vowel (or consonant, for that
matter). The accent here is usually an approximative ASCII equivalent
Am 26.09.2010 um 15:56 schrieb Axel Kielhorn:
Is the compose feature you mention the same as dead keys?
No. Compose is a key available only from the X Window System. After hitting
Compose (it is not a modifier key), you can enter a known key sequence to get a
non-ASCII character; e.g.,
Am 26.09.2010 um 15:56 schrieb Axel Kielhorn:
Some operating systems or application offer input systems or input
methods which allow to enter non-standard characters.
XeTeX also supports UTF-16 encodings. \XeTeXdefaultencoding{CharsetName} and
\XeTeXinputencoding{CharsetName} can set many
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
