On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Allin Cottrell wrote: > My proposed fix is that we always output TeX in UTF-8, regardless of the > platform and the system text encoding. This means that when we output > "complete" TeX files (with a header) they will include: > > \usepackage{ucs} > \usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc} > > Does anyone see a problem with this? Or have an alternative solution? Sorry, that's not quite accurate. The above-mentioned \usepackage instructions to LaTeX would NOT be included if (a) gretl was compiled with the --disable-nls switch or (b) gretl is running in English. But they would be included (and output would be UTF-8 encoded) in all other cases, under my proposal.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011, Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti wrote: > On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Allin Cottrell wrote: > >> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Allin Cottrell wrote: >> >>> My proposed fix is that we always output TeX in UTF-8, regardless of the >>> platform and the system text encoding. This means that when we output >>> "complete" TeX files (with a header) they will include: >>> >>> \usepackage{ucs} >>> \usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc} >>> >>> Does anyone see a problem with this? Or have an alternative solution? >> >> Sorry, that's not quite accurate. The above-mentioned \usepackage >> instructions to LaTeX would NOT be included if >> >> (a) gretl was compiled with the --disable-nls switch or >> (b) gretl is running in English. >> >> But they would be included (and output would be UTF-8 encoded) >> in all other cases, under my proposal. > > Two things: > > 1) I don't see any harm in providing utf8 support even when the language is > English. Doesn't do any harm, does it? > > 2) Is it really necessary to use the extended utf8x set? This may cause > problems because, IIRC, the package that TeXlive calls ucs is "unicode" in > MikTeX. Can't we just get away with > > \uespackage[utf8]{inputenc} Ah, maybe so. Does that require the ucs package, or is inputenc self-contained with the plain "utf8" option?

On 12/17/2011 09:38 AM, Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti wrote: > > 1) I don't see any harm in providing utf8 support even when the language > is English. Doesn't do any harm, does it? In principle I'm also in favor of a uniform handling (that's where the "uni" in unicode comes from, no?). However, maybe there's a case for the ascii/English combination as a fallback if utf8 isn't available on the TeX system, and therefore keep requirements for English to a minimum?

On 16-12-2011, at 23:48, Allin Cottrell wrote: > Hello all, > > We have a problem with internationalization of gretl's TeX output > (mostly on Windows) and I'd like to ask for your views. > > The current situation is as described in chapter 32 of the Gretl > User's Guide. That is: > > (a) If the "system" encoding is UTF-8 we output TeX in UTF-8 and put > appropriate \usepackage{} lines into the TeX header. That's OK. > > (b) Otherwise we output TeX in the locale encoding and put > \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc} into the header. That might have been > OK in the days when the only translations of gretl were into West > European languages, but it's not OK any more. > > My proposed fix is that we always output TeX in UTF-8, regardless of > the platform and the system text encoding. This means that when we > output "complete" TeX files (with a header) they will include: > > \usepackage{ucs} > \usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc} > > Does anyone see a problem with this? Or have an alternative > solution? An alternative solution could be to use a template file. The template would contain the fixed preamble such as \documentclass[11pt]{article} \usepackage{ucs} \usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc} (Note: generated on Mac OS X). A user can change the template to fit their needs. [...]