Re: Work around AMS book unicode issue?
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 03:44:40PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 11:46:08AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > Le 10/01/2023 à 03:42, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > > > The attached patch works around an AMS book unicode issue, as discussed > > > here: > > > > > > > > > https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/671116/how-to-find-and-fix-the-origin-of-invalid-unicode-character-generated-by-lyx > > > > > > Disadvantage of the workaround is the added dependency, textcase.sty, > > > which is not needed for AMS book documents without unicode. If this is a > > > problem, I suppose we could add a new layout flag that, if activated, > > > loads textcase if there is unicode. > > > > > > Attached is an example .lyx file that does not compile without the patch > > > and does compile with the patch. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Since this is not needed with latest LaTeX, > > The workaround is not needed? I think it is needed until AMS book is > updated (which is not clean if/when it will). For example, I have an > updated TeX Live 2022 and the workaround is needed. > > > I'd suggest maybe a "Requires > > makeuppercase" that triggers code checking whether textcase.sty may be > > needed. (we can do that, right?) > > I can look into that. You mean the goal is that on older LaTeX > distributions, the workaround may not be needed? > > > Is this only an amsbook issue? What about book.cls? > > I do not think book.cls needs the workaround. When I change the example > to Book (Standard), it compiles fine without the workaround. > > > > By the way, should the "amsbook" dependency in \DeclareLaTeXClass be > > > there regardless of this patch? > > > > AFAIR, this is the default when no dependency is given (require > > layoutname.cls) > > Ah makes sense. Since the root of this issue is in AMS book, I'm fine to not apply the patch. I'll take this off my radar unless someone disagrees. Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
Re: Work around AMS book unicode issue?
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 11:46:08AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 10/01/2023 à 03:42, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > > The attached patch works around an AMS book unicode issue, as discussed > > here: > > > > > > https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/671116/how-to-find-and-fix-the-origin-of-invalid-unicode-character-generated-by-lyx > > > > Disadvantage of the workaround is the added dependency, textcase.sty, which > > is not needed for AMS book documents without unicode. If this is a problem, > > I suppose we could add a new layout flag that, if activated, loads textcase > > if there is unicode. > > > > Attached is an example .lyx file that does not compile without the patch > > and does compile with the patch. > > > > Thoughts? > > Since this is not needed with latest LaTeX, The workaround is not needed? I think it is needed until AMS book is updated (which is not clean if/when it will). For example, I have an updated TeX Live 2022 and the workaround is needed. > I'd suggest maybe a "Requires > makeuppercase" that triggers code checking whether textcase.sty may be > needed. (we can do that, right?) I can look into that. You mean the goal is that on older LaTeX distributions, the workaround may not be needed? > Is this only an amsbook issue? What about book.cls? I do not think book.cls needs the workaround. When I change the example to Book (Standard), it compiles fine without the workaround. > > By the way, should the "amsbook" dependency in \DeclareLaTeXClass be there > > regardless of this patch? > > AFAIR, this is the default when no dependency is given (require > layoutname.cls) Ah makes sense. Thanks, Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
Re: Work around AMS book unicode issue?
Le 10/01/2023 à 03:42, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : The attached patch works around an AMS book unicode issue, as discussed here: https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/671116/how-to-find-and-fix-the-origin-of-invalid-unicode-character-generated-by-lyx Disadvantage of the workaround is the added dependency, textcase.sty, which is not needed for AMS book documents without unicode. If this is a problem, I suppose we could add a new layout flag that, if activated, loads textcase if there is unicode. Attached is an example .lyx file that does not compile without the patch and does compile with the patch. Thoughts? Since this is not needed with latest LaTeX, I'd suggest maybe a "Requires makeuppercase" that triggers code checking whether textcase.sty may be needed. (we can do that, right?) Is this only an amsbook issue? What about book.cls? By the way, should the "amsbook" dependency in \DeclareLaTeXClass be there regardless of this patch? AFAIR, this is the default when no dependency is given (require layoutname.cls) JMarc -- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
