Hello, before replying, a few more thoughs ...
Another question is also: suppose that someone who has no idea about different versions of patterns comes accross the repository (someone writing support for hyphenation in web pages or any other open-source project). Which patterns should be exposed as default ones? Which ones are better? (I seriously don't know that.) The default ones should get the name en-US and the other one "en-US-x-somethingelse". On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 09:22, Élie Roux wrote: > 2010/4/27 Mojca Miklavec wrote: >> >> So ... if you want to load Knuth's patterns using the "lua" way, then >> we need to import both extended and Knuth's patterns into repository >> and invent the proper name (en-us-WHATHERE?). > > en-us-knuth? If the "max" set of patterns is decided to be the default, than I would agree to have en-us-x-knuth (x for the reasons of IANA's standard meaning "private extension"; see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5646). But in case that Knuth's patterns become the default ones, we need another name for the "max" patterns. > and having this in languages.dat.lua: > > ["english"]={ > loader="hyphen.tex", -- or anything else True. I'm still not convinced that we need a special loader for that even if we take over the patterns into our repository. > code="en-US-Knuth", > lefthyphenmin=2, > righthyphenmin=3, > synonyms={"USenglish", "usenglish", "american"}, > }, > ["usenglishmax"]={ > loader="loadhyph-en-us.tex", > code="en-US", > lefthyphenmin=2, > righthyphenmin=3, > synonyms={}, > } Mojca
