On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 09:11:26AM +0200, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > > > >> OK. > >> But we're really asking about the licence permission at the first > >> place. > > > > I agree to change the license to the LPPL. > > Huraaay! Thanks a lot! > > >> Any other modifications to the text can be added at any time. > >> Also, please take a short glimpse at the cyrillic patterns, just to > >> check if the conversion was OK. I hope it was, but it's always good to > >> have a second opinion. > > > > Just looked at my sources from which it is easy to produce the > > patterns for both latinic and cyrillic alphabets since it > > contains single characters for all sounds (i.e. there are no > > digraphs). Hence, it is much easier for me to just produce the > > new patterns from sources rather than wade through those patterns. > > One question: are these sources a secret? Maybe you can make some > stricter licence for those, but it would be nice to store the sources > somewhere. Unless you really want to hide them from possible > commercial users (that's the case with Slovenian list of words).
No, they're not a secret though they have never been published. It's a bunch of preprocessor (cpp) and awk and some really strange looking files. And they are almost 20 years old. So, I guess that I'd have to clean them up a bit for publication. > Also, if anyone wants to improve your work later ... Definitely. > >> > Therefore, I think that the prefix > >> > of the patterns file should remain "sh". Last time I looked, > >> > there has been proliferation of new names such as srhyph or > >> > hrhyph (though I believe that hrhyph was a different pattern set > >> > altogether). > >> > >> Yes, hrhyph are different patterns, and srhyph are cyrillic ones > >> (loaded by default together with latin labels!!!). > >> > >> But we're modifying + renaming all of them now, so shhyph would not be > >> used at all, so it makes no sense to try to modify & include it now. > >> Let's focus on new patterns instead. > >> > >> See http://www.tug.org/svn/texhyphen/trunk/tex/patterns/utf8/ for the > > > > That link doesn't work. > > Sorry, Karl has asked me to prepare TDS-compliant structure. At the moment: > > http://www.tug.org/svn/texhyphen/trunk/hyph-utf8/tex/generic/hyph-utf8/patterns/ > > >> new patterns. I did not commit yours yet since I'm waiting for your > >> approval to modify the licence, but the patterns would have been named > >> hyph-sr-latn.tex. > > > > I still disagree with the name. As I said, the patterns are not > > specific to Serbian. Nor to Croatian or Bosnian or whatever new > > language appears tomorrow. > > So - there has been no Montenegrian langue registered officially yet? > :) :) :) :) I really don't know, but if not yet it's probably in the works :) > >> I think that if Bosnians decide to use them one day, > >> they can still add an entry to language.dat or load the patterns > >> inside Bosnian pattern loader. > >> > >> Unless you're willing to add support for Bosnian to Babel as well. > >> Even though I understand the Serbo-Croatian language(s), I don't hear > >> any difference between them (I do not distinguish them), so I cannot > >> be of any help here. > >> > >> I'm pretty sure that if we call the patterns Serbocroatian now, some > >> people will pop up at some time complaining that the language doesn't > >> exist any more and they will try to convince Karl to rename them. A > >> similar situation with "Norwegian". > > > > It is up to you to decide and I'm not going to try to enforce > > particular names. I'll just upload the new version of the patterns > > to CTAN with the new license along with a cyrillics version. > > I have a little request in this particular case. I would prefer it > much more if you could send me the two files, and I will put them into > the svn repository (they need to be UTF-8 encoded, no tex control > sequences, no catcode changes, no grouping, no messages ... only > comments, \patterns{...} and \hyphenation{...}). OK. There used to be a checksum field. Is that still needed? > The plan is to eventually get rid of the old files in distributions > (maybe not so soon), and to use proper unicode files instead, that can > be understood by all the TeX engines, including the cutting-edge XeTeX > and LuaTeX. > > The files from repository from > > http://www.tug.org/svn/texhyphen/trunk/hyph-utf8/tex/generic/hyph-utf8/patterns/ > or actually the whole > http://www.tug.org/svn/texhyphen/trunk/hyph-utf8 > will be put on CTAN and used in TeX Live 2008, so it makes much more > sense to keep these new files up to date. If you put a new file to > CTAN, it probably won't be on CTAN, and I would need to convert it > again if you don't provide a proper format for it. > > >> A really nice thing to do would be adding support for Cyrilic script > >> for Serbian to babel though. > > > > I'll take a look at it, though I believe that somebody already did > > that before. > > That's quite possible, but there are no files on TeX Live, I guess not > even on CTAN. > I've seen some conversations in forums saying something like: "take > this file from here and do this and that ..." > I forgot the exact details, but people were complaining that > distributions do not support cyrillic script. Right. I'll see what I can do. I suppose that it shouldn't be a biggie. > Thanks a lot, > Mojca Cheers, Dejan
