2010/1/18 Taco Hoekwater

Hi,

views63 wrote:

...

Hi  all,

I'm using `` complex analysis'' the output is wrong.

Not really. We (Hans and I) would say that it is now finally right. ;)

...

but using \ quotation (... ...) can output the correct quotation marks

This is the right way to do it. Alternatively, you can use unicode characters to input the correct quotation marks.

Best wishes, Taco

Thank you ，I see. -- Best Regards

2010/1/18 Alan BRASLAU :

I have very mixed feelings, as I know how to type ... but I never can recall the keyboard gymnastics necessary to get this in unicode. (Things are even worse on a Mac, as the standard keyboard layout is missing lots of important characters.)

At least with German key layouts I get a lot more characters on the Mac than on Windows. Otherwise just design your own (or expand your French? one) with "Ukelele": http://scripts.sil.org/Ukelele Because the standard German key layout gives access to accented vowels using dead keys, but not to e.g. eastern European accented consonants, and I don't like to learn Dvorak or Neo, I made my own. But there are some ready-made ones around, too, e.g. http://freenet-homepage.de/lutz_mader/keyboards.html I don't miss the old TeX "ligatures". Greetlings, Hraban

Let me be a bit more "nationalistic" and exaggerate a bit for a moment (just in order to explain why I find the idea of using `` a bad one; do not take the text below too seriously or personally): On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 14:15, Alan BRASLAU wrote:

On Monday 18 January 2010 13:50:25 Taco Hoekwater wrote:

...

views63 wrote:

...

I'm using `` complex analysis'' the output is wrong.

Not really. We (Hans and I) would say that it is now finally right. ;)

This is true of many standard TeX ligatures (is this the right word here?) such as ... (\ldots, \dots also works), << (\og), >> (\fg), "` (\glqq), "' (\grqq), ~ (unbreakable space), etc.

This can be a bit disturbing for experienced TeX users.

- I agree. 80% of Slovenian (La)TeX users use US quotation marks just because they have read some TeX tutorial about how to use `` and ''. - Knuth only thought of English quotation marks when implementing the ugly trick. There is no simple way for "opening quotation marks" („) for Slovenian/German and most probably for quite some other languages as well. So ``'' notation is useless for a big fraction of users anyway. (The only alternative is probably \glqq & friends. You can use a similar one in ConTeXt as well, but I tend to forget exact names.) - On Slovenian keyboard it's pretty complicated to type `. Let's take Mac (but it's equally complicated on Windows). One needs to press Alt+<+space. This means 2x3=6 strokes to get the character “ typeset. The character “ itself only takes a single stroke on Mac/Slo. On Mac/US Int. it's just Alt+[ (2 keystrokes) to get it, so not that bad either. - When using \quotation{} it's easy to change the mind about what quotation marks to use (Slovenian/German use two different sets) and the proper layout will be used based on the language being used (comes handy when mixing languages inside the document). Which is great - no need to think which one to use. - The deciding moment when some of these ugly tricks have been thrown away was when we realized that if you do add those tricks, there is no way to print the grave accent. (Grave accent will be automatically converted to the same "comma" that you get in quotation marks.) In good old TeX the grave accent (`) and the character that you get when you type ` are at two different slots. In Unicode-encoded fonts that's not doable. This means that if one wants to enable the `` trick then there's no way to allow composite characters with grave accent or the character ` in typewriter font. In most cases that is not a problem since Unicode fonts usually support a wide range of characters, but I already had to use a character not present in Unicode. And that was not doable until the hack has been removed. In the good old days the ugly tricks have been there mostly in order to compensate for lack of Unicode & accents on keyboards. Nowadays the limitation of encodings has (almost) gone. You can easily change the behaviour of ConTeXt by modifying font features if you insist in using ``''.

OK, \quotation{} is cleaner and of course using unicode characters may be even more readable, sometimes.

I have very mixed feelings, as I know how to type ... but I never can recall the keyboard gymnastics necessary to get this in unicode.

That's why I always use \quotation{}.

(Things are even worse on a Mac, as the standard keyboard layout is missing lots of important characters.)

I have no idea which keyboard you use, but US International is pretty rich (the problem is lack of some legend on keyboard itself), on the other hand it's easy enough to make your own layout. Mojca

On Tuesday 19 January 2010 20:31:22 Mojca Miklavec wrote:

Let me be a bit more "nationalistic" and exaggerate a bit for a moment (just in order to explain why I find the idea of using `` a bad one; do not take the text below too seriously or personally):

I think that the easiest would be for everyone to use English :) That's my bit for Imperialism! As I write in a mixture of languages, I like to use \quotation{}. But long-time TeX users have habits that die hard, and just as we expect fl to yield fl, we also learn many "bad" tricks such as ``'' and ...

- The deciding moment when some of these ugly tricks have been thrown away was when we realized that if you do add those tricks, there is no way to print the grave accent.

How about {\`} (untested) You probably are right to favor \quotation{}, \dots, etc. and to go unicode. But is it really necessary and a good idea to break with TeX culture? I guess so. What about $ $ (and $$ $$)? How about % (\%)? Not to mention &

I have no idea which keyboard you use, but US International is pretty rich (the problem is lack of some legend on keyboard itself), on the other hand it's easy enough to make your own layout.

My own computers are US International. However, I often use other computers having different layouts, many of which I cannot change. The worst I find are the Macs with French keyboards, as when I use them, I always have to remember how to find \ and {} The bottom line is that we need to document these differences towards the very beginning of the manual, where ConTeXt is identified as a form of TeX. Alan

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:

Am 19.01.10 21:10, schrieb Alan BRASLAU:

...

You probably are right to favor \quotation{}, \dots, etc. and to go unicode. But is it really necessary and a good idea to break with TeX culture? I guess so. What about $ $ (and $$ $$)? How about % (\%)? Not to mention&

$ and & are no problem because you can write inline math with \formula{...} and ConTeXt’s tables don't use &

I will probably also set # catcode to be letter in ctxcatcodetable.

% is problmeatic because you need a character to start a comment and there is AFAIK no way to get the same result from % with a macro

\comment{something} or \startcomment ... \stopcomment Aditya

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:

Am 19.01.10 21:26, schrieb Aditya Mahajan:

...

...

% is problmeatic because you need a character to start a comment and there is AFAIK no way to get the same result from % with a macro

\comment{something}

or

\startcomment ... \stopcomment what about

\starttext text Auf% lage text \stoptext

\starttext text Auf\relax lage text \stoptext

or

\unprotect

\def\foo#1#2% {...}

\protect (with appropriate changes in the catcode tables) For (simple) user macros we already have \define[2]\foo { ... } Aditya

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Alan BRASLAU wrote:

On Tuesday 19 January 2010 20:31:22 Mojca Miklavec wrote:

...

Let me be a bit more "nationalistic" and exaggerate a bit for a moment (just in order to explain why I find the idea of using `` a bad one; do not take the text below too seriously or personally):

I think that the easiest would be for everyone to use English :) That's my bit for Imperialism!

As I write in a mixture of languages, I like to use \quotation{}. But long-time TeX users have habits that die hard, and just as we expect fl to yield fl, we also learn many "bad" tricks such as ``'' and ...

...

- The deciding moment when some of these ugly tricks have been thrown away was when we realized that if you do add those tricks, there is no way to print the grave accent.

How about {\`} (untested)

No. It is not easy. See http://archive.contextgarden.net/thread/20060912.165653.90ce7552.en.html In particular, see Taco's reply. Aditya

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 21:10, Alan BRASLAU wrote:

I think that the easiest would be for everyone to use English :) That's my bit for Imperialism!

But then there would be plenty of historians trying to reproduce the "old languages", just as Idris does. So nothing would be gained :) :) :)

As I write in a mixture of languages, I like to use \quotation{}. But long-time TeX users have habits that die hard,

(Let them continue use TeX then :) :) :) But seriously - there are lots of other incompatibilities.

and just as we expect fl to yield fl, we also learn many "bad" tricks such as ``'' and ...

No, you won't get that ligature if your font doesn't support it and most people do not notice that ligatures exist at all (including me, even after using LaTeX for several years). Yes - it is a trick on the same level, but that trick needs to be implemented in font. ConTeXt will never try to replace that with a ligature if your font won't ask for that (and there's a way to turn ligatures off completely in mkiv/xetex). You can also "easily" create a font that will do the replacement of backtick with single quotation mark for you. The main difference is that 99.9% fonts in the wild don't have that replacement built in, while most high-quality fonts do have some ligatures. The replacement of ` or ' would usually be done by editors (Word), but there is no standard editor for TeX to do that.

...

- The deciding moment when some of these ugly tricks have been thrown away was when we realized that if you do add those tricks, there is no way to print the grave accent.

How about {\`} (untested)

Apart from the fact that this is a command used for a completely different purpose, it wouldn't help. The problem is that transformation is being done on glyph at position 0x60 in font itself. The only option would be to copy the glyph 0x60 to Private Unicode Area and then assign \textgrave to point to that obscure slot. But that's more than ugly. (See also Aditya's answer about apostrophe.)

You probably are right to favor \quotation{}, \dots, etc. and to go unicode. But is it really necessary and a good idea to break with TeX culture? I guess so. What about $ $ (and $$ $$)? How about % (\%)? Not to mention &

This is a completely different question. (I do miss $$...$$ to be honest.) These are active characters. You may do \catcode\`&=\letter (untested syntax) or maybe some \nonknuthmode command and you'll get the characted &. Same is true for % (but yes - you need to forget about comments then). The meaning of those characters is changed on "the editor level", so it's extremely easy to change the behaviour. The hack with `` is on font level. And that's when it's gets really ugly. There is *no* way to get the original character back without changing the font itself. Two exceptions have been left on font level. That is two (harmless) ligatures: "--" (endash), "---" (emdash) and replacement with apostrophe as in "I'm". The last one is still very very ugly, but I think it's mission impossible to convince anyone to "change the habit" of using the proper apostrophe instead of '.

...

I have no idea which keyboard you use, but US International is pretty rich (the problem is lack of some legend on keyboard itself), on the other hand it's easy enough to make your own layout.

My own computers are US International. However, I often use other computers having different layouts, many of which I cannot change. The worst I find are the Macs with French keyboards,

Let's be honest ... any French keyboard ... :)

as when I use them, I always have to remember how to find \ and {}

I admit that I neither remember where to find the letter A on French keyboard nor the same characters on Slovenian keyboard ... But wait! So you are complaining that you don't find quotation marks when already \ and {} cause you problems?

The bottom line is that we need to document these differences towards the very beginning of the manual, where ConTeXt is identified as a form of TeX.

I agree with that ... but there's a general "problem" with (unmaintaned) documentation in ConTeXt. Mojca

On Wednesday 20 January 2010 08:04:43 Taco Hoekwater wrote:

The problem is that all the latex and plain tex books promote the use of `` and '' and people that already use TeX are unlikely to change their habits (and most will not read the context manual as thoroughly as they should).

This is my concern. Whereas I do prefer \quotation{} being functionally logical, after all the spirit of TeX, I also like unicode generalizations (such as ± for \pm). Nevertheless, hard core TeX users as well as converts from LaTeX *expect* ``'', --, ---, ..., etc. to work in ConTeXt. I assume that the present discussion is useful and not simply controversial. I ignore the mechanisms behind the different implementations (macro, fonts, catcar, ...) and the problems that arise. Concerning typesetting source code, I would suggest something as simple as suspending ALL such tricks within \text{} and \starttyping\stoptyping (perhaps parametrized). One could also define something like \shellescape{}, analogous to \quotation{}, to typeset `echo "hello world"` and even \string{} to typeset "string" or 'string', according to the programming language initialized. What I also find disturbing is that *some* of these conventions are retained, but not all. Alan

On 20-1-2010 8:28, Alan BRASLAU wrote:

On Wednesday 20 January 2010 08:04:43 Taco Hoekwater wrote:

...

The problem is that all the latex and plain tex books promote the use of `` and '' and people that already use TeX are unlikely to change their habits (and most will not read the context manual as thoroughly as they should).

This is my concern. Whereas I do prefer \quotation{} being functionally logical, after all the spirit of TeX, I also like unicode generalizations (such as ± for \pm). Nevertheless, hard core TeX users as well as converts from LaTeX *expect* ``'', --, ---, ..., etc. to work in ConTeXt. I assume that the present discussion is useful and not simply controversial.

one can always write small script that converts `` '' to \quotation (actually one of my reasons for never using `` '' is that it looks quite ugly in the source as the second pair is not tilted and i hate ugly looking sources)

I ignore the mechanisms behind the different implementations (macro, fonts, catcar, ...) and the problems that arise.

Concerning typesetting source code, I would suggest something as simple as suspending ALL such tricks within \text{} and \starttyping\stoptyping (perhaps parametrized). One could also define something like \shellescape{}, analogous to \quotation{}, to typeset `echo "hello world"` and even \string{} to typeset "string" or 'string', according to the programming language initialized.

indeed this backtick is to be dealt with by a command as it differs per operating system

What I also find disturbing is that *some* of these conventions are retained, but not all.

in principle we can even drop $ and & as we now have primitives for them and # can go also at some point (but unfortunately tex is somewhat sensitive for #s passed in arguments Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Alan, Alan BRASLAU wrote:

Furthermore, some "editors" such as MS-Word break the source, substituting RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK (Character: ’ U+2019) for APOSTROPHE (Character: ' U+0027) for some insane reason cited as the preferred character to be used for apostrophe.

From the Unicode specification: 0027 ' APOSTROPHE = apostrophe-quote (1.0) = APL quote * neutral (vertical) glyph with mixed usage * 2019 is preferred for apostrophe * preferred characters in English for paired quotation marks are 2018 & 2019 So I think Word actually does the right thing (assuming you can live with its auto-correct features in the first place) Best wishes, Taco

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 03:42:11PM +0100, Mojca Miklavec wrote:

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:58, Alan BRASLAU wrote:

...

I'm not sure that I understand the problem with ` (GRAVE ACCENT) that cannot be solved with a macro or by a setting that disactivates the production of ‘ (LEFT SINGLE QUOTE MARK).

Try to process the following with XeTeX (I would be grateful if anyone knew how to solve that particular problem; also note that some hyphenation patterns don't work when ' is replaced by proper quotation mark):

\font\a="[lmroman10-regular]" \font\b="[lmroman10-regular]:mapping=tex-text" \starttext \a ``abc'' {\buildtextaccent\textgrave a}\par \b ``abc'' {\buildtextaccent\textgrave a} \stoptext

\def\textgrave{\char"0300 } \font\a="[lmroman10-regular]" \font\b="[lmroman10-regular]:mapping=tex-text" \starttext \a ``abc'' {\buildtextaccent\textgrave a}\par \b ``abc'' {\buildtextaccent\textgrave a} \stoptext Regards, Khaled -- Khaled Hosny Arabic localiser and member of Arabeyes.org team Free font developer

On 20-1-2010 8:04, Taco Hoekwater wrote:

Mojca Miklavec wrote:

...

...

The worst I find are the Macs with French keyboards,

Let's be honest ... any French keyboard ... :)

Don't forget macbook keyboards with dvorak mapping ;)

and if i remember right mojca has a slovenian dvorak with some missing keytops replaced by spares with other symbols Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 08:31:22PM +0100, Mojca Miklavec wrote:

- The deciding moment when some of these ugly tricks have been thrown away was when we realized that if you do add those tricks, there is no way to print the grave accent. (Grave accent will be automatically converted to the same "comma" that you get in quotation marks.) In good old TeX the grave accent (`) and the character that you get when you type ` are at two different slots. In Unicode-encoded fonts that's not doable. This means that if one wants to enable the `` trick then there's no way to allow composite characters with grave accent or the character ` in typewriter font. In most cases that is not a problem since Unicode fonts usually support a wide range of characters, but I already had to use a character not present in Unicode. And that was not doable until the hack has been removed.

Now, I feel there is some thing wrong here, (`) is not an accent (despite it misleading Unicode name), but rather a spacing character, so typing n` to get ǹ is wrong; you should use (̀ ) instead (this is U+0300), since the later is the combining grave accent while the former is a spacing character. Regards, Khaled -- Khaled Hosny Arabic localiser and member of Arabeyes.org team Free font developer