[XeTeX] Mixed Roman and Indian alphabets for Sanskrit

Philip Taylor P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk
Fri Feb 17 15:47:20 CET 2017

Dominik Wujastyk wrote:

> 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.
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 ?

** Phil.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20170217/3f11fd36/attachment.html>

More information about the XeTeX mailing list