[XeTeX]   in XeTeX

[Tobias Schoel]

Am 13.11.2011 12:35, schrieb Zdenek Wagner:
> 2011/11/13<mskala at ansuz.sooke.bc.ca>:
>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011, Petr Tomasek wrote:
>>> make ~ not active when writing my own macros because it contradicts
>>> the Unicode standard...)
>>
>> Isn't it just as much a "contradiction" of the "standard" for \ to do
>> what \ does?  I don't think that is a good way to decide what TeX's
>> input format should be.
>> --
> And how about math and tables in TeX? And I would like to know a good
> text editor that visually displays U+00a0 in such a way that I can
> easily distinguish it from U+0020. If I canot see the difference, I
> can never be sure. And I definitely do not want to use hexedit for my
> TeX files.

That is a good question. It's close to a question I asked earlier on 
this list:

How much text flow control mechanism should be done by none-ASCII 
characters? Unicode has different codepoints for signs with the same 
meaning but different text flow control (space vs. non-break space). So 
text flow could be controled via Unicode codepoints. But should it? Or 
should text flow be controled via commands and active characters?

One opinion says, that using (La)TeX is programming. Consequently, each 
character used should be visually well distinguishable. This is not the 
case with all the Unicode white space characters.

One opinion says, that using (La)TeX is transforming plain text (like 
.txt) in well formatted text. Consequently, the plain text may contain 
as much (meta)-information as possible and these information should be 
used when transforming it to well formatted text. So Unicode white space 
characters are allowed and should be valued by their specific meaning.

>
>> Matthew Skala
>> mskala at ansuz.sooke.bc.ca                 People before principles.
>> http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
>>   http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>>
>
>
>