[XeTeX] XeTeX for Linux (first experiencies)
ycodet at club-internet.fr
Tue Jun 13 09:57:01 CEST 2006
Le 8 juin 06, à 13:26, public at heslin.eclipse.co.uk a écrit :
Sorry about the late reply. My silly antispam misinterpreted something
in your message (something to do with LaTeX?).
> I'm afraid I think that the difference between the simplistic Babel
> patterns in grhyph.tex and Filippou's patterns (which are the ones
> called elhyphen -- has Robin got confused about this?), are that the
> Babel patterns are wrong, and Filippou's are right (or at least try to
> DTRT). I would prefer holding off at the moment uploading a solution
> that we know to be incorrect.
Robin didn't mention "elhyph.tex"; the "ellhyph-ety.tex" suggestion is
mine. Maybe I'm perverted by Sanskrit; as far as I know, no edition of
Sanskrit texts ever introduced etymological patterns which are totally
unknown in Sanskrit manuscripts. So I'm inclined to think that
"grhyph.tex" patterns aren't wrong; some people care about etymological
patterns, some don't (which is my case, particularly if manuscripts
don't use etymological breaks). One could argue that hyphenations like
ὑπε-ραλγῶ are misleading, but only for beginners (and maybe beginners
who are still mislead by such hyphenations should study handbooks, not
texts :). That's why I think it would be a good things if users had the
choice between etymological and non etymological patterns, according to
> As for the issue of ancient vs. modern, IIRC the mechanisms of Babel
> require that greek and polutonikogreek share the same hyphenation
> patterns, since they are defined as dialects of the same language.
> restriction is one of the many unfortunate aspects of Babel's handling
> of Greek.
I agree. Ancient and modern Greek should be separated in the
"substitute_of_babel" package for XeTeX.
More information about the XeTeX