<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<br>
Dominik Wujastyk wrote:<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre-wrap; display: block; width: 98vw;">> 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.
</span><br>
OK, this I understand and accept. But if an open standard such as
the OTF specification uses terms such as "language" and "script"
with specific and well-defined meanings, is it helpful to end-users
to then re-define those terms within an adjunct package such as
Polyglossia or Babel ? Just as with Unicode, or the TEI, is it not
better to stick with well-established and standardised usage rather
than invent a (La)TeX-specific usage that can (IMHO) only lead to
even worse confusion ?<br>
<br>
** Phil.<br>
</body>
</html>