Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
Hi Tobias,
Polyglossia works fine for german! I believed you missed a error message.
You have to change one line, you need:
\defaultfontfeatures{Ligatures=TeX}
regards
Keith.
Am 28.10.2011 um 16:53 schrieb Tobias Schoel:
As a simple user (very simple: none of my work gets published, I just use TeX
for myself): What do I have to think about, when moving from XeLaTeX to
LuaLaTeX?
I took a random document I created last week and tried to compile it with
lualatex instead of xelatex. It threw an error because of polyglossia. OK, I
commented out polyglossia. It compiled without error but hyphenation was
broken (the text was German). I added \usepackage[ngerman]{babel} [would be
great error in xetex as I read often on this list] and the document compiled
without errors and with good hyphenation.
So was it luck or should this be standard?
bye
Toscho
Am 28.10.2011 16:33, schrieb Vafa Khalighi:
As an example, the attached PDF is just a portion of a maths textbook
with the title Theory of Ordinary Differential Equation and Dynamic
Systems which has been typeset using XePersian andit is published
just today in Iran.
http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1440752
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
[TeX Live list dropped, TeXhax added] Ulrike Fischer wrote: So a font loader should be written as a sort of library with clear API which can be used by every format. Amen. And if other add-ons could follow suit, what an enormous benefit that might bring. Although, as regular readers of the list will know, I do have philosophical problems with LaTeX, I think that my severest criticism is its monolithic nature : if you want to use any part of LaTeX's functionality, you have to use the whole caboodle, want it or not. It is, unfortunately, almost certainly too late to hope for a more modular approach, but if a new font loader /were/ to be written, with a well-defined API, callable from IniTeX, Plain TeX, LaTeX and Context (plus future, as-yet undreamed-of formats), it /might/ encourage other contributors to do likewise. Philip Taylor -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
Ulrike Fischer wrote: LaTeX monolithic? In general people complain that they have to load packages for everything ;-). Context is monolithic, but in LaTeX you only have to use a rather small kernel. It may be a small kernel in relation to the size of the total available packages, but it is neither small in absolute terms not could it reasonably be termed anything but monolithic for any normal definition of that word. And actually quite a lot of latex packages works also with plain or with mini-latex. Perhaps so, and that is all to the good, but my criticism was aimed at LaTeX /qua/ LaTeX, not at its many adjunct packages. Philip Taylor -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Paul Isambert zappathus...@free.fr wrote: Le 30/10/2011 06:25, Vafa Khalighi a écrit : XeTeX font support is heaps better and stable than what luaotfload package offers and I guess that is why many users still like using xetex instead luatex. I personally believe that it is a bad practice that luaotfload just copies ConTeXt code, it should not be deeply dependent on ConTeXt because Hans may want to try experimenting with some features today and next day he gets rid of them just like the recent updates of luaotfload that Khaled talked about it. I think, this is awful! What should users who used those features (and need it heavily in their daily typesetting tasks, do?). They wake up one day and suddenly see that yes, luaotfload does not provide the features they need. luaotfload needs to be written from scratch independent of any ConTeXt code. An independent fontloader could very well be unstable too. But anyway I suppose this will happen some day; relying on Hans's code is the only solution for the moment, because nobody has written a public alternative (and writing such an alternative is no simple task), but I don't suppose it will remain so. As far as I'm concerned, I don't use luaotfload but my own fontloader. It is not public for the moment because it doesn't do much more than what I need to do. But I have good hope that somebody will some day come with a full solution; or perhaps different people will write partial solutions (someone could write something for latin typography, somebody else could devise an arabic fontloader, and so on and so forth). The problem is, it's easier to blame luaotfload for its uncertain status than to sit down and write a replacement; so please let's not forget that without luaotfload LuaTeX wouldn't be different from PDFTeX as far as fonts are concerned. Best, Paul -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
The problem is, it's easier to blame luaotfload for its uncertain status than to sit down and write a replacement; so please let's not forget that without luaotfload LuaTeX wouldn't be different from PDFTeX as far as fonts are concerned. That was not what I was trying to convey. What I meant to say was that luaotfload needs to work out its own implementation. If it relies on ConTeXt, then it has obviously no control over the code and hence it would create some major problems. Indeed I am grateful to Hans, Khaled and anyone else who has been working on luaotfload but a LaTeX or a generic TeX package needs to implement its own code indepently. -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 04:25:21PM +1100, Vafa Khalighi wrote: XeTeX font support is heaps better and stable than what luaotfload package offers and I guess that is why many users still like using xetex instead luatex. I personally believe that it is a bad practice that luaotfload just copies ConTeXt code, it should not be deeply dependent on ConTeXt because Hans may want to try experimenting with some features today and next day he gets rid of them just like the recent updates of luaotfload that Khaled talked about it. I think, this is awful! What should users who used those features (and need it heavily in their daily typesetting tasks, do?). They wake up one day and suddenly see that yes, luaotfload does not provide the features they need. luaotfload needs to be written from scratch independent of any ConTeXt code. The situation is not as bad as you make it seems, what have gone is two minor features that IMO was a mistake to provide them in the first place, but since we are talking about a yet to be released version of luaotfload, there might be an alternate solution at the time of release. Writing an OpenType layout engine is not a simple task, and you can judge from the many years it toke FOSS community to have a really good one, HarfBuzz (the name luaotfload is misleading, font loading is about the easiest part of luaotfload, OpenType implementation is really what matters.) If it were for me, I'd plug HarfBuzz into luatex proper and call it a day, but this does not align well with the design principles of luatex so it is unlikely to happen. The main goal of luaotfload, besides having an OpenType engine for lualatex, is too make sure we don't end up with two different OpenType implementations for luatex, each broken in its own way. OpenType is such a horribly documented standard that is there is no single implementation of it that does not have its own share of bugs (it is often not easy to tell if a bug is a bug or since the documentation are so fuzzy in certain areas). Regards, Khaled -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 04:25:21PM +1100, Vafa Khalighi wrote: XeTeX font support is heaps better and stable than what luaotfload package offers and I guess that is why many users still like using xetex instead luatex. I personally believe that it is a bad practice that luaotfload just copies ConTeXt code, it should not be deeply dependent on ConTeXt because Hans may want to try experimenting with some features today and next day he gets rid of them just like the recent updates of luaotfload that Khaled talked about it. I think, this is awful! What should users who used those features (and need it heavily in their daily typesetting tasks, do?). They wake up one day and suddenly see that yes, luaotfload does not provide the features they need. luaotfload needs to be written from scratch independent of any ConTeXt code. The situation is not as bad as you make it seems, what have gone is two minor features that IMO was a mistake to provide them in the first place, but since we are talking about a yet to be released version of luaotfload, there might be an alternate solution at the time of release. Writing an OpenType layout engine is not a simple task, and you can judge from the many years it toke FOSS community to have a really good one, HarfBuzz (the name luaotfload is misleading, font loading is about the easiest part of luaotfload, OpenType implementation is really what matters.) If it were for me, I'd plug HarfBuzz into luatex proper and call it a day, but this does not align well with the design principles of luatex so it is unlikely to happen. If plugging harfbuzz into luatex does not require a huge effort, it could serve as bridge from xetex to luatex while a more principled design is being created. Principles are nice, and have benefits over the long haul, but in cases where the design is evolving it really helps to get an implementation into the hands of users and let them point out the areas where work is needed. The main goal of luaotfload, besides having an OpenType engine for lualatex, is too make sure we don't end up with two different OpenType implementations for luatex, each broken in its own way. OpenType is such a horribly documented standard that is there is no single implementation of it that does not have its own share of bugs (it is often not easy to tell if a bug is a bug or since the documentation are so fuzzy in certain areas). The way to bring clarity in cases of fuzzy standards is for one implementation, perhaps harfbuzz-ng is a candidate, as the reference and try to match that behaviour. The reference implementation won't be perfect, but needs to be open to change as problems are identified. -- George N. White III aa...@chebucto.ns.ca Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
Le 30/10/2011 13:20, George N. White III a écrit : On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote: Writing an OpenType layout engine is not a simple task, and you can judge from the many years it toke FOSS community to have a really good one, HarfBuzz (the name luaotfload is misleading, font loading is about the easiest part of luaotfload, OpenType implementation is really what matters.) If it were for me, I'd plug HarfBuzz into luatex proper and call it a day, but this does not align well with the design principles of luatex so it is unlikely to happen. If plugging harfbuzz into luatex does not require a huge effort, it could serve as bridge from xetex to luatex while a more principled design is being created. Principles are nice, and have benefits over the long haul, but in cases where the design is evolving it really helps to get an implementation into the hands of users and let them point out the areas where work is needed. As far as I can see, the principles behind LuaTeX are pretty clear; it offers tools, not solutions. Sometimes that makes it apparently slow-witted, like TeX itself, because it refuses to implement solutions that seem successful elsewhere. But one shouldn't forget that (Lua)TeX is an extremely sophisticated typographic system, and that flexibility is an integral part of it. Using HarfBuzz would probably offer a simple solution, but you'd lose what makes LuaTeX so worthwhile. Best, Paul -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 04:29:18PM +0100, Paul Isambert wrote: Le 30/10/2011 13:20, George N. White III a écrit : On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote: Writing an OpenType layout engine is not a simple task, and you can judge from the many years it toke FOSS community to have a really good one, HarfBuzz (the name luaotfload is misleading, font loading is about the easiest part of luaotfload, OpenType implementation is really what matters.) If it were for me, I'd plug HarfBuzz into luatex proper and call it a day, but this does not align well with the design principles of luatex so it is unlikely to happen. If plugging harfbuzz into luatex does not require a huge effort, it could serve as bridge from xetex to luatex while a more principled design is being created. Principles are nice, and have benefits over the long haul, but in cases where the design is evolving it really helps to get an implementation into the hands of users and let them point out the areas where work is needed. As far as I can see, the principles behind LuaTeX are pretty clear; it offers tools, not solutions. Sometimes that makes it apparently slow-witted, like TeX itself, because it refuses to implement solutions that seem successful elsewhere. But one shouldn't forget that (Lua)TeX is an extremely sophisticated typographic system, and that flexibility is an integral part of it. Using HarfBuzz would probably offer a simple solution, but you'd lose what makes LuaTeX so worthwhile. Best, Paul What is so worthwile on cripling one scripting language with another one? P. -- Petr Tomasek http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~tomasek Jabber: but...@jabbim.cz EA 355:001 DU DU DU DU EA 355:002 TU TU TU TU EA 355:003 NU NU NU NU NU NU NU EA 355:004 NA NA NA NA NA -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 09:20:19AM -0300, George N. White III wrote: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 04:25:21PM +1100, Vafa Khalighi wrote: XeTeX font support is heaps better and stable than what luaotfload package offers and I guess that is why many users still like using xetex instead luatex. I personally believe that it is a bad practice that luaotfload just copies ConTeXt code, it should not be deeply dependent on ConTeXt because Hans may want to try experimenting with some features today and next day he gets rid of them just like the recent updates of luaotfload that Khaled talked about it. I think, this is awful! What should users who used those features (and need it heavily in their daily typesetting tasks, do?). They wake up one day and suddenly see that yes, luaotfload does not provide the features they need. luaotfload needs to be written from scratch independent of any ConTeXt code. The situation is not as bad as you make it seems, what have gone is two minor features that IMO was a mistake to provide them in the first place, but since we are talking about a yet to be released version of luaotfload, there might be an alternate solution at the time of release. Writing an OpenType layout engine is not a simple task, and you can judge from the many years it toke FOSS community to have a really good one, HarfBuzz (the name luaotfload is misleading, font loading is about the easiest part of luaotfload, OpenType implementation is really what matters.) If it were for me, I'd plug HarfBuzz into luatex proper and call it a day, but this does not align well with the design principles of luatex so it is unlikely to happen. If plugging harfbuzz into luatex does not require a huge effort, it could serve as bridge from xetex to luatex while a more principled design is being created. It would be better to have XeTeX with a stable HarfBuzz-ng support. Actually, I think little people need more then than what XeTTeX acctually provides... -- Petr Tomasek http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~tomasek Jabber: but...@jabbim.cz EA 355:001 DU DU DU DU EA 355:002 TU TU TU TU EA 355:003 NU NU NU NU NU NU NU EA 355:004 NA NA NA NA NA -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
Are you talking about TeX--XeT bidirectional typesetting algorithm? No, It has several major bugs and it is not perfect for RTL typesetting (ok but not perfect). On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Petr Tomasek toma...@etf.cuni.cz wrote: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 09:20:19AM -0300, George N. White III wrote: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 04:25:21PM +1100, Vafa Khalighi wrote: XeTeX font support is heaps better and stable than what luaotfload package offers and I guess that is why many users still like using xetex instead luatex. I personally believe that it is a bad practice that luaotfload just copies ConTeXt code, it should not be deeply dependent on ConTeXt because Hans may want to try experimenting with some features today and next day he gets rid of them just like the recent updates of luaotfload that Khaled talked about it. I think, this is awful! What should users who used those features (and need it heavily in their daily typesetting tasks, do?). They wake up one day and suddenly see that yes, luaotfload does not provide the features they need. luaotfload needs to be written from scratch independent of any ConTeXt code. The situation is not as bad as you make it seems, what have gone is two minor features that IMO was a mistake to provide them in the first place, but since we are talking about a yet to be released version of luaotfload, there might be an alternate solution at the time of release. Writing an OpenType layout engine is not a simple task, and you can judge from the many years it toke FOSS community to have a really good one, HarfBuzz (the name luaotfload is misleading, font loading is about the easiest part of luaotfload, OpenType implementation is really what matters.) If it were for me, I'd plug HarfBuzz into luatex proper and call it a day, but this does not align well with the design principles of luatex so it is unlikely to happen. If plugging harfbuzz into luatex does not require a huge effort, it could serve as bridge from xetex to luatex while a more principled design is being created. It would be better to have XeTeX with a stable HarfBuzz-ng support. Actually, I think little people need more then than what XeTTeX acctually provides... -- Petr Tomasek http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~tomasek Jabber: but...@jabbim.cz EA 355:001 DU DU DU DU EA 355:002 TU TU TU TU EA 355:003 NU NU NU NU NU NU NU EA 355:004 NA NA NA NA NA -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 03:29:30AM +1100, Vafa Khalighi wrote: Are you talking about TeX--XeT bidirectional typesetting algorithm? Sorry that was a typo, am using a slow connection and a mutt on a server over ssh... No, It has several major bugs and it is not perfect for RTL typesetting (ok but not perfect). I meant XeTeX as opposed to LuaTeX... On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Petr Tomasek toma...@etf.cuni.cz wrote: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 09:20:19AM -0300, George N. White III wrote: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 04:25:21PM +1100, Vafa Khalighi wrote: XeTeX font support is heaps better and stable than what luaotfload package offers and I guess that is why many users still like using xetex instead luatex. I personally believe that it is a bad practice that luaotfload just copies ConTeXt code, it should not be deeply dependent on ConTeXt because Hans may want to try experimenting with some features today and next day he gets rid of them just like the recent updates of luaotfload that Khaled talked about it. I think, this is awful! What should users who used those features (and need it heavily in their daily typesetting tasks, do?). They wake up one day and suddenly see that yes, luaotfload does not provide the features they need. luaotfload needs to be written from scratch independent of any ConTeXt code. The situation is not as bad as you make it seems, what have gone is two minor features that IMO was a mistake to provide them in the first place, but since we are talking about a yet to be released version of luaotfload, there might be an alternate solution at the time of release. Writing an OpenType layout engine is not a simple task, and you can judge from the many years it toke FOSS community to have a really good one, HarfBuzz (the name luaotfload is misleading, font loading is about the easiest part of luaotfload, OpenType implementation is really what matters.) If it were for me, I'd plug HarfBuzz into luatex proper and call it a day, but this does not align well with the design principles of luatex so it is unlikely to happen. If plugging harfbuzz into luatex does not require a huge effort, it could serve as bridge from xetex to luatex while a more principled design is being created. It would be better to have XeTeX with a stable HarfBuzz-ng support. Actually, I think little people need more then than what XeTTeX acctually provides... -- Petr Tomasek http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~tomasek Jabber: but...@jabbim.cz EA 355:001 DU DU DU DU EA 355:002 TU TU TU TU EA 355:003 NU NU NU NU NU NU NU EA 355:004 NA NA NA NA NA -- Petr Tomasek http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~tomasek Jabber: but...@jabbim.cz EA 355:001 DU DU DU DU EA 355:002 TU TU TU TU EA 355:003 NU NU NU NU NU NU NU EA 355:004 NA NA NA NA NA -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
Le 30/10/2011 17:20, Petr Tomasek a écrit : On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 04:29:18PM +0100, Paul Isambert wrote: Le 30/10/2011 13:20, George N. White III a écrit : On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Khaled Hosnykhaledho...@eglug.org wrote: Writing an OpenType layout engine is not a simple task, and you can judge from the many years it toke FOSS community to have a really good one, HarfBuzz (the name luaotfload is misleading, font loading is about the easiest part of luaotfload, OpenType implementation is really what matters.) If it were for me, I'd plug HarfBuzz into luatex proper and call it a day, but this does not align well with the design principles of luatex so it is unlikely to happen. If plugging harfbuzz into luatex does not require a huge effort, it could serve as bridge from xetex to luatex while a more principled design is being created. Principles are nice, and have benefits over the long haul, but in cases where the design is evolving it really helps to get an implementation into the hands of users and let them point out the areas where work is needed. As far as I can see, the principles behind LuaTeX are pretty clear; it offers tools, not solutions. Sometimes that makes it apparently slow-witted, like TeX itself, because it refuses to implement solutions that seem successful elsewhere. But one shouldn't forget that (Lua)TeX is an extremely sophisticated typographic system, and that flexibility is an integral part of it. Using HarfBuzz would probably offer a simple solution, but you'd lose what makes LuaTeX so worthwhile. Best, Paul What is so worthwile on cripling one scripting language with another one? I don't understand your (I suppose) rhetorical question. Do you mean crippling TeX with Lua? If that's how you see LuaTeX, I think there isn't much we're going to agree on. Best, Paul -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 05:18:18PM +0100, Petr Tomasek wrote: Actually, I think little people need more then than what XeTTeX acctually provides... 640kb ought to be enough for anybody. -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
Khaled Hosny wrote: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 05:18:18PM +0100, Petr Tomasek wrote: Actually, I think little people need more then than what XeTTeX acctually provides... 640kb ought to be enough for anybody. I think there is a world market for maybe five computers. -- Thomas Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1943. -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Oct 30, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: Khaled Hosny wrote: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 05:18:18PM +0100, Petr Tomasek wrote: Actually, I think little people need more then than what XeTTeX acctually provides... 640kb ought to be enough for anybody. I think there is a world market for maybe five computers. -- Thomas Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1943. Howdy, Yeah... given the state of technology back then he was probably correct. We all have an awful lot of thanks that we should give to NASA for the practical application of Solid State Physics to practical devices. Good Luck, Herb Schulz (herbs at wideopenwest dot com) -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
XeTeX font support is heaps better and stable than what luaotfload package offers and I guess that is why many users still like using xetex instead luatex. I personally believe that it is a bad practice that luaotfload just copies ConTeXt code, it should not be deeply dependent on ConTeXt because Hans may want to try experimenting with some features today and next day he gets rid of them just like the recent updates of luaotfload that Khaled talked about it. I think, this is awful! What should users who used those features (and need it heavily in their daily typesetting tasks, do?). They wake up one day and suddenly see that yes, luaotfload does not provide the features they need. luaotfload needs to be written from scratch independent of any ConTeXt code. -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
2011/10/28 Vafa Khalighi vafa...@gmail.com: Hi Since Jonathan has no time any more for coding XeTeX, then what will be the state of XeTeX in TeX distributions such as TeXLive? will be XeTeX removed from TeXLive just like Aleph and Omega (in favour of LuaTeX) were removed from TeXLive? Currently we have a large number of Persian TeX users and they need XeTeX and if XeTeX gets removed from TeX distribution, then it would create lots of problems for our community. Currently I am working on porting my works to luatex but that at least takes few years to become stable enough. I do not know any precise number but it seems to me there are a lot of XeTeX users in India. Moreover, the Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics is typeset by XeLaTeX. Thus I hope XeTeX will not be removed within a decade. Thanks -- Zdeněk Wagner http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/ http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Mojca Miklavec mojca.miklavec.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 13:19, Vafa Khalighi wrote: Hi Since Jonathan has no time any more for coding XeTeX, then what will be the state of XeTeX in TeX distributions such as TeXLive? will be XeTeX removed from TeXLive just like Aleph and Omega (in favour of LuaTeX) were removed from TeXLive? Omega was remove because it was buggy, unmaintained, but most important of all: hardly usable. It took a genius to figure out how to use it, while XeTeX is exactly the contrary. It simplifies everything in comparison to pdfTeX. Omega was low quality and Aleph was deprecated also because LuaTeX now contains all functionality that was worth keeping. There is no reason to remove XeTeX yet (unless it gets merged with LuaTeX one day, but that won't happen yet), but it is true that a maintainer is desperately needed. If nothing else, if nobody adapts the code, it might stop working with next version of Mac OS X or a version after that. If I have an old house that meets my needs but has substandard plumbing and wiring, I may be in desperate need of a contractor who can bring it up to current standards, or I can tear it down and build a new house. Both options are expensive, but renovation involves greater uncertainties requires more skills than does new construction, so unless there are other considerations (house is a historical landmark), new construction is often better than renovation. Clearly XeTeX fills a need, but that doesn't mean it deserves ongoing development. The groups that rely on XeTeX have to either find a way to support development or switch to a new engine, which at present is LuaTeX. There has already been discussion of what would be needed to make the changes in XeTeX, maybe there needs to be discussion (in LuaTeX forums) of the barriers to adoption faced by the groups who currently rely on XeTeX. -- George N. White III aa...@chebucto.ns.ca Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
That is not entirely true. Should the users of TeX (those who use Knuth's original TeX engine) support the development of Knuth TeX or move to another engine just because Knuth no longer extends TeX and he only fixes bugs? On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:33 PM, George N. White III gnw...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Mojca Miklavec mojca.miklavec.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 13:19, Vafa Khalighi wrote: Hi Since Jonathan has no time any more for coding XeTeX, then what will be the state of XeTeX in TeX distributions such as TeXLive? will be XeTeX removed from TeXLive just like Aleph and Omega (in favour of LuaTeX) were removed from TeXLive? Omega was remove because it was buggy, unmaintained, but most important of all: hardly usable. It took a genius to figure out how to use it, while XeTeX is exactly the contrary. It simplifies everything in comparison to pdfTeX. Omega was low quality and Aleph was deprecated also because LuaTeX now contains all functionality that was worth keeping. There is no reason to remove XeTeX yet (unless it gets merged with LuaTeX one day, but that won't happen yet), but it is true that a maintainer is desperately needed. If nothing else, if nobody adapts the code, it might stop working with next version of Mac OS X or a version after that. If I have an old house that meets my needs but has substandard plumbing and wiring, I may be in desperate need of a contractor who can bring it up to current standards, or I can tear it down and build a new house. Both options are expensive, but renovation involves greater uncertainties requires more skills than does new construction, so unless there are other considerations (house is a historical landmark), new construction is often better than renovation. Clearly XeTeX fills a need, but that doesn't mean it deserves ongoing development. The groups that rely on XeTeX have to either find a way to support development or switch to a new engine, which at present is LuaTeX. There has already been discussion of what would be needed to make the changes in XeTeX, maybe there needs to be discussion (in LuaTeX forums) of the barriers to adoption faced by the groups who currently rely on XeTeX. -- George N. White III aa...@chebucto.ns.ca Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
Personally, I would not mind if XeTeX went into maintenance mode. I like such stability. It already has a great deal of functionality, probably enough to last me the rest of my writing career. I do take Vafa's point, though, that if future OS platforms break XeTeX, it would be nice to have someone fix things up. Dominik On 28 October 2011 14:54, Vafa Khalighi vafa...@gmail.com wrote: My question in the first place had nothing to do with the development of XeTeX. In fact it is a long time that there has been no development for XeTeX and I have no problem with that. What scares me is that XeTeX may be unusable in say several years. On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Vafa Khalighi vafa...@gmail.com wrote: That is not entirely true. Should the users of TeX (those who use Knuth's original TeX engine) support the development of Knuth TeX or move to another engine just because Knuth no longer extends TeX and he only fixes bugs? On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:33 PM, George N. White III gnw...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Mojca Miklavec mojca.miklavec.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 13:19, Vafa Khalighi wrote: Hi Since Jonathan has no time any more for coding XeTeX, then what will be the state of XeTeX in TeX distributions such as TeXLive? will be XeTeX removed from TeXLive just like Aleph and Omega (in favour of LuaTeX) were removed from TeXLive? Omega was remove because it was buggy, unmaintained, but most important of all: hardly usable. It took a genius to figure out how to use it, while XeTeX is exactly the contrary. It simplifies everything in comparison to pdfTeX. Omega was low quality and Aleph was deprecated also because LuaTeX now contains all functionality that was worth keeping. There is no reason to remove XeTeX yet (unless it gets merged with LuaTeX one day, but that won't happen yet), but it is true that a maintainer is desperately needed. If nothing else, if nobody adapts the code, it might stop working with next version of Mac OS X or a version after that. If I have an old house that meets my needs but has substandard plumbing and wiring, I may be in desperate need of a contractor who can bring it up to current standards, or I can tear it down and build a new house. Both options are expensive, but renovation involves greater uncertainties requires more skills than does new construction, so unless there are other considerations (house is a historical landmark), new construction is often better than renovation. Clearly XeTeX fills a need, but that doesn't mean it deserves ongoing development. The groups that rely on XeTeX have to either find a way to support development or switch to a new engine, which at present is LuaTeX. There has already been discussion of what would be needed to make the changes in XeTeX, maybe there needs to be discussion (in LuaTeX forums) of the barriers to adoption faced by the groups who currently rely on XeTeX. -- George N. White III aa...@chebucto.ns.ca Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 01:58:18PM +0200, Mojca Miklavec wrote: If nothing else, if nobody adapts the code, it might stop working with next version of Mac OS X or a version after that. I assume this is related to native Mac font APIs, right? But then I think the worst case with to disable that losing AAT font support, but OpenType fonts would still work using ICU (which I believe is also used on Mac). Regards, Khaled -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.comwrote: Generally, all XeTeX documents must render in luatex without the need of modifying the source. I see that things are changing. Simple नमस्ते दुनिया fails in luatex from TL 2010 but works in TL 2011. We cannot switch from XeTeX to luatex today but it may be possible in the future. Is there a feature comparison between LuaTeX and XeTeX out there somewhere? In other words, when do we know when LuaTeX is ready for XeTeX users? Kirk -- $DO || ! $DO ; try try: command not found -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Oct 28, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Kirk Lowery wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com wrote: Generally, all XeTeX documents must render in luatex without the need of modifying the source. I see that things are changing. Simple नमस्ते दुनिया fails in luatex from TL 2010 but works in TL 2011. We cannot switch from XeTeX to luatex today but it may be possible in the future. Is there a feature comparison between LuaTeX and XeTeX out there somewhere? In other words, when do we know when LuaTeX is ready for XeTeX users? As I understand it, many of the important XeLaTeX packages (e.g. Polyglossia and xeCJK, and probably others) make extensive use of XeTeXinterchartoks mechanism. LuaLaTeX has no direct equivalent to this, and so porting these packages to LuaTeX will require significant work. For a proof of concept solution that Taco posted see http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/21625/in-luatex-is-it-possible-to-change-font-language-according-to-the-script-glyphs/21691#21691 However in the comments it is mentioned that there may be problems with this solution and that LuaTeX has more powerful ways of doing the same thing, but I don't think anyone has done it to date. The issues that drove the development of XeLaTeX (language support) are not the same issues that drive the development of LuaTeX, and so although there is a lot of overlap in what they each can do, LuaTeX doesn't address the needs of many XeLaTeX users at the moment. Alan -- Alan Munn am...@gmx.com -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 02:50:53PM +0200, Zdenek Wagner wrote: Generally, all XeTeX documents must render in luatex without the need of modifying the source. I see that things are changing. Simple नमस्ते दुनिया fails in luatex from TL 2010 but works in TL 2011. We cannot switch from XeTeX to luatex today but it may be possible in the future. I by works you mean you are getting some output, then this is true, otherwise I don't think you will get correct Indic rendering with the current OpenType engine used by luatex packages. Regards, Khaled -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
Mojca Miklavec wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 13:19, Vafa Khalighi wrote: Hi Since Jonathan has no time any more for coding XeTeX, then what will be the state of XeTeX in TeX distributions such as TeXLive? will be XeTeX removed from TeXLive just like Aleph and Omega (in favour of LuaTeX) were removed from TeXLive? Omega was remove because it was buggy, unmaintained, but most important of all: hardly usable. It took a genius to figure out how to use it, while XeTeX is exactly the contrary. It simplifies everything in comparison to pdfTeX. I think that last remark is grossly unfair, although probably not intentionally so. XeTeX adds functionality that was non- existent in PdfTeX, but that hardly makes it simpler. It also introduces a non-TeXlike syntax, particularly (perhaps only) in the extended \font primitive that could (IMHO) have been better thought out, particularly in the overloading of string quotes and the introduction of square brackets. Philip Taylor -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On 28 Oct 2011, at 21:20, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: Omega was remove because it was buggy, unmaintained, but most important of all: hardly usable. It took a genius to figure out how to use it, while XeTeX is exactly the contrary. It simplifies everything in comparison to pdfTeX. I think that last remark is grossly unfair, although probably not intentionally so. XeTeX adds functionality that was non- existent in PdfTeX, but that hardly makes it simpler. I know I'm supposed to only respond very occasionally to email these days, but I can't resist adding a comment here. :) IM(NS)HO there is some truth to both sides of this. I believe xetex does make a couple of things _much_ simpler: specifically, the use of a variety of fonts that are not provided by the TeX distribution of your choice, or a TeX-oriented vendor; and working with Unicode, and in particular with non-Latin scripts having complex rendering requirements. While these things could in theory also be done with Omega, achieving them was beyond the ability of all but a very select few experts. On the other hand, the underlying document formatting language and process is still TeX, with all its trickiness and complexity (and power); xetex certainly doesn't make that any simpler. It also introduces a non-TeXlike syntax, particularly (perhaps only) in the extended \font primitive that could (IMHO) have been better thought out, particularly in the overloading of string quotes and the introduction of square brackets. Yes, I wish now that this had been done differently, not by gradual extension of the old \font primitive but as a properly-designed new feature, but it kinda just growed in response to various needs... it's less than ideal, I agree. JK -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 02:03:52PM +0200, Khaled Hosny wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 01:58:18PM +0200, Mojca Miklavec wrote: If nothing else, if nobody adapts the code, it might stop working with next version of Mac OS X or a version after that. I assume this is related to native Mac font APIs, right? But then I think the worst case with to disable that losing AAT font support, but OpenType fonts would still work using ICU (which I believe is also used on Mac). Regards, Khaled What is the status of the harfbuzz-ng backend support in XeTeX? -- Petr Tomasek http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~tomasek Jabber: but...@jabbim.cz EA 355:001 DU DU DU DU EA 355:002 TU TU TU TU EA 355:003 NU NU NU NU NU NU NU EA 355:004 NA NA NA NA NA -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
2011/10/28 Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk: Mojca Miklavec wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 13:19, Vafa Khalighi wrote: Hi Since Jonathan has no time any more for coding XeTeX, then what will be the state of XeTeX in TeX distributions such as TeXLive? will be XeTeX removed from TeXLive just like Aleph and Omega (in favour of LuaTeX) were removed from TeXLive? Omega was remove because it was buggy, unmaintained, but most important of all: hardly usable. It took a genius to figure out how to use it, while XeTeX is exactly the contrary. It simplifies everything in comparison to pdfTeX. I think that last remark is grossly unfair, although probably not intentionally so. XeTeX adds functionality that was non- existent in PdfTeX, but that hardly makes it simpler. It also introduces a non-TeXlike syntax, particularly (perhaps only) in the extended \font primitive that could (IMHO) have been better thought out, particularly in the overloading of string quotes and the introduction of square brackets. If I understand Mojca correctly, she compared XeTeX to Omega. Look what was needed to typeset a Devanagari text in Omega. It was necessary to plug a few OTP's. Some users somehow managed to do it but it required non-TeX files. In XeTeX you have to define that the font is in the Devanagari script and the rest is just TeX. Philip Taylor -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Zdeněk Wagner http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/ http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
Zdenek Wagner wrote:
If I understand Mojca correctly, she compared XeTeX to Omega.
If that were the case, Zdenek, would Mojca not have written
XeTeX is exactly the contrary. It simplifies everything
in comparison to Omega., rather than XeTeX is exactly
the contrary. It simplifies everything in comparison to pdfTeX.
which is what she actually wrote ?
Well, I I want to typeset a text in Hindi using XeLaTeX, I just type a
text in UTF-8, switch the font (using the fontspec package) by
\fontspec[Script=Devanagari]{fontname} and it works. If I do the same
in lualatex, it does not work, I would have to plug somewhere a lot of
lua code in order to specify how to handle the Devanagari script. The
fontspec package just handles loading the font, not correct rendering
of the text.
I think I'm losing the plot, Zdenek ! At first you said
If I understand Mojca correctly, she compared XeTeX to Omega.
but now you are comparing Xe[La]TeX to lua[La]TeX, so I'm
a little confused as to how you are interpreting Mojcs's
words.
** Phil.
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Fr, 28 Okt 2011, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
I cannot test other Indic scripts because I do not know them. Tibetan
script may be difficult.
Tibetan is much simpler than Devanagari scripts. It has a certain amount
of fixed ligatures, plus a fw rules if one wants to make non-standard
ligatures (practically only used for transcribing Sanskrit texts). I wrote
long time ago otp/ocp for omega to do the stuff. That can easilybe
proted to luatex.
WRT xetex, I don't know much about good otf fonts for Tibetan, but
there are for sure some.
Best wishes
Norbert
Norbert Preiningpreining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
`...You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call
attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling
anyone or anything.'
`But the plans were on display...'
`On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to
find them.'
`That's the display department.'
`With a torch.'
`Ah, well the lights had probably gone.'
`So had the stairs.'
`But look you found the notice didn't you?'
yes I did. It was on display in the
bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused
lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of The
Leopard.'
--- Arthur singing the praises of the local council planning
--- department.
--- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
