Re: [XeTeX] babel

2016-03-25 12:38 GMT+01:00 Javier Bezos : > El 25/03/2016 10:40, Zdenek Wagner escribió: > > The old IL2 encoding was creased for the CS fonts and supported in >> cslatex. [...] Thus the result is that >> the only encoding for Czech and Slovak that has ever been

Re: [XeTeX] babel

El 25/03/2016 10:40, Zdenek Wagner escribió: The old IL2 encoding was creased for the CS fonts and supported in cslatex. [...] Thus the result is that the only encoding for Czech and Slovak that has ever been officially supported in babel is T1. It makes no sense to introduce IL2 (and XL2 that

Re: [XeTeX] babel

2016-03-25 10:39 GMT+01:00 Apostolos Syropoulos : > > > > > >Why to stop it? I just feel easier to have one common source for > everything than maintaining a separate source for 8-bit > >babel, for babel for XeTeX, for babel for luatex etc. > > > > Currently, there are more

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Hi Ross and Javier, there are two aspects. If I take an example of Czech and Slovak, many years ago DC fonts and EC fonts were not suitable for Czech/Slovak typography, therefore CS fonts with a different encoding were created. Now LM fonts as well as TeX Gyre contain everything we need and are

Re: [XeTeX] babel

> >IMO the reason for such activity is to have one common declaration for all >engines so that everything >is defined at one place and 8-bit babel as well as that for XeTeX is generated >from the same source. > OK then let's stop compiling and distributing TeX, dvips, etc.! The approach: one

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Hi all, IMO the reason for such activity is to have one common declaration for all engines so that everything is defined at one place and 8-bit babel as well as that for XeTeX is generated from the same source. Zdeněk Wagner http://ttsm.icpf.cas.cz/team/wagner.shtml http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Hi Javier, On Mar 24, 2016, at 5:59 PM, Javier Bezos > wrote: Apostolos, preface = \textPi \textrho\acctonos \textomicron\textlambda \textomicron\textgamma XeLaTeX is Unicode aware and can handle Unicode strings. Therefore, I fail to see why you

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Apostolos, preface = \textPi \textrho\acctonos \textomicron\textlambda \textomicron\textgamma XeLaTeX is Unicode aware and can handle Unicode strings. Therefore, I fail to see why you are doing things this way. The LGR font encoding is an ancient hack that has no usage anymore. Of course,

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Mojca, Thank you. See me reply to Zdeněk. What is the difference between months.format.wide and months.stand-alone.wide? In most languages, none. This distinction is made by the CLDR, but I wonder if it's useful here, so very likely the format branch should be removed. In Slovenian one

Re: [XeTeX] babel

On 23 March 2016 at 19:31, Javier Bezos wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm working on a new version of babel, with a new way to define > languages in a descriptive way, more than in a programmatic one (of > course, the latter won't be excluded because it's still necessary). > >

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Apostolos, > preface = \textPi \textrho\acctonos \textomicron\textlambda \textomicron\textgamma > > XeLaTeX is Unicode aware and can handle Unicode strings. Therefore, I fail to see > why you are doing things this way. The LGR font encoding is an ancient hack that > has no usage anymore.

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Zdeněk, Thank you very much. Very useful, and you confirm my suspect the data in the CLDR is not always reliable. Furthermore, it's obvious it's intended mainly for displaying plain text in some especific contexts and not for fine typesetting. At first my idea was to sinchronize more or less

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Only ञ is a part of ज्ञ but it seems to me that the index filed lists characters that may be used as a heading in the index. Thus ञ should not be listed. Zdeněk Wagner http://ttsm.icpf.cas.cz/team/wagner.shtml http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz 2016-03-23 23:29 GMT+01:00 BPJ : > >

Re: [XeTeX] babel

> characters] ङ and ञ are not used in Hindi, they should be removed from index Aren't they used in conjuncts either? /bpj onsdag 23 mars 2016 skrev Zdenek Wagner : > Hi Javier, > > I am copying my reply to the cstex list because I am not autoritative for > Slovak and

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Hi Javier, I am copying my reply to the cstex list because I am not autoritative for Slovak and maybe I will not be precise enough. I am giving my commnents to Czech (cs.ini), Slovak (sk.ini), and Hindi (hi.ini). Some comments are common for all. I do not understand the meaning of the encoding

[XeTeX] babel

Hi all, I'm working on a new version of babel, with a new way to define languages in a descriptive way, more than in a programmatic one (of course, the latter won't be excluded because it's still necessary). The idea is to create a set of ini file like those you can find on

[XeTeX] babel 3.9 beta

Hi all, A beta version is babel 3.9 is now available. For further info see: http://www.tex-tipografia.com/babel_news.html Javier -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex

[XeTeX] babel and sanskrit (again) and related questions

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bonjour, I just discovered that babel is working well with sanskrit! Only one file is missing: sanskrit.ldf. I made an (ugly) hack of english.ldf and any text after \selectlanguage{sanskrit} is correctly hyphenated (both scripts: roman tranliteration

Re: [XeTeX] babel

2012/9/4 Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com That's bad news! I thought that François Charette implemented French in Polyglossia well. What is missing? Maybe it could be implemented fast. And are there good OpenType fonts for French? I know that French uses tiny spaces preceding double

Re: [XeTeX] babel

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:11 PM, François Charette firmicu...@gmail.com wrote: While I am on this list let me ask you a related question. When Arthur took up maintenance of polyglossia last year his main goal was to support LuaLaTeX as well as XeLaTeX. Any news about this? About a month ago

Re: [XeTeX] babel

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Joel C. Salomon joelcsalo...@gmail.com wrote: http://gitub.com/reutenauer/polyglossia. …and of course I copied his typo. That should be http://github.com/reutenauer/polyglossia, of course. —Joel --

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Hi, Zdenek, again I've come in to the middle of a conversation... It's not clear to me how to implement the rules, or who is responsible for implementing them (or quite what the rules ought to be). Yes it is possible to implement, for instance, a french-specific kerning in an OpenType font,

Re: [XeTeX] babel

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:34:19PM -0400, Joel C. Salomon wrote: About a month ago Arthur Reutenauer posted to this list (and some others) that experimental support for LuaTeX had been added in the development version he maintains at http://github.com/reutenauer/polyglossia. The support

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Hi, [snip] Two possible smartfont techniques for such locale feature are: - alternate french punctuation marks with larger sidebearings: this is very unflexible for users (punctuation characters without additional space or with different space width are troublesome) but of course simplifies

Re: [XeTeX] babel

2012/9/6 Tobias Schoel liesdieda...@googlemail.com: Hi, [snip] Two possible smartfont techniques for such locale feature are: - alternate french punctuation marks with larger sidebearings: this is very unflexible for users (punctuation characters without additional space or with different

Re: [XeTeX] babel

2012/9/6 Georg Duffner g.duff...@gmail.com: Hi, Am 2012-09-06 16:36, schrieb Zdenek Wagner: 2012/9/6 Tobias Schoel liesdieda...@googlemail.com: It's simply checking for a flag that says I want French Spacing and then including white space (in whatever form) at appropriate places. You can

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Am 2012-09-04 13:23, schrieb Zdenek Wagner: 2012/9/4 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk: Zdenek Wagner wrote: Language feature of a font. OK, now understood, but this does not address my concern regarding the countless extant fonts that do not have such a feature. Would it not be better

Re: [XeTeX] babel

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 03/09/2012 20:16, Zdenek Wagner a écrit : 2012/9/3 Javier Bezos lis...@tex-tipografia.com: François, Some times ago, I read that babel will be compatible with xelatex. I would like to use babel with french and sanskrit languages, do I have

Re: [XeTeX] babel

2012/9/5 François Patte francois.pa...@mi.parisdescartes.fr: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 03/09/2012 20:16, Zdenek Wagner a écrit : 2012/9/3 Javier Bezos lis...@tex-tipografia.com: François, Some times ago, I read that babel will be compatible with xelatex. I would

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Fontspec manual, para 10.13: In rare situations users may want to mechanically distort the shapes of the glyphs in the current font such as shown in Example 37. Please don’t overuse these features; they are not a good alternative to having the real shapes. If values are omitted, their defaults

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Am Mon, 3 Sep 2012 20:16:22 +0200 schrieb Zdenek Wagner: Some times ago, I read that babel will be compatible with xelatex. I would like to use babel with french and sanskrit languages, do I have any chance to succeed? Maintainig babel is important for (pdf)latex which is still in use but

Re: [XeTeX] babel

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 03/09/2012 20:16, Zdenek Wagner a écrit : 2012/9/3 Javier Bezos lis...@tex-tipografia.com: François, Some times ago, I read that babel will be compatible with xelatex. I would like to use babel with french and sanskrit languages, do I

Re: [XeTeX] babel

2012/9/4 François Patte francois.pa...@mi.parisdescartes.fr: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 03/09/2012 20:16, Zdenek Wagner a écrit : 2012/9/3 Javier Bezos lis...@tex-tipografia.com: François, Some times ago, I read that babel will be compatible with xelatex. I would

Re: [XeTeX] babel

2012/9/4 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk: Zdenek Wagner wrote: I know that French uses tiny spaces preceding double punctuation. IMHO it should be a property of a font, not of a typesetting system. Presumably you mean a user-selectable property rather than a static property (one would

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Am Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:45:53 +0200 schrieb Zdenek Wagner: Here luatex has an advantage that such features can be injected via lua without changing the font (if you know how to do it). I prefer this way because active characters may break some macros, eg a macro may expect an argument

Re: [XeTeX] babel

2012/9/4 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk: I am confused, Zdeněk : Zdenek Wagner wrote: Not the font, only the language. but in your earlier message you wrote IMHO it should be a property of a font, not of a typesetting system. So I am not at all clear what you are advocating : are

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Zdenek Wagner wrote: Language feature of a font. OK, now understood, but this does not address my concern regarding the countless extant fonts that do not have such a feature. Would it not be better to postulate a solution that can be used with any extant font ? ** Phil.

Re: [XeTeX] babel

2012/9/4 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk: Zdenek Wagner wrote: Language feature of a font. OK, now understood, but this does not address my concern regarding the countless extant fonts that do not have such a feature. Would it not be better to postulate a solution that can be used

Re: [XeTeX] babel

2012/9/4 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk: Zdenek Wagner wrote: If the system offered inserting features dynamically without requiring users to understand font internals, it would be even better. Hear hear. As one who sits only on the edge of typography and ?fontography?, I find the

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Zdenek Wagner wrote: If the system offered inserting features dynamically without requiring users to understand font internals, it would be even better. Hear hear. As one who sits only on the edge of typography and ?fontography?, I find the present XeTeX interface almost unusable,

Re: [XeTeX] babel

Maintainig babel is important for (pdf)latex which is still in use but for XeLaTeX I would suggest polyglossia which already works. I would add the new version of babel won't make things to work automagically. Rather it will provide some tools to ease making language files compatible with

[XeTeX] babel

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bonjour, Some times ago, I read that babel will be compatible with xelatex. I would like to use babel with french and sanskrit languages, do I have any chance to succeed? Thanks for information. - -- François Patte UFR de mathématiques et

Re: [XeTeX] babel

François, Some times ago, I read that babel will be compatible with xelatex. I would like to use babel with french and sanskrit languages, do I have any chance to succeed? Not yet -- I'm still working on it. For further info, see: http://www.tex-tipografia.com/babel_news.html An advance of

Re: [XeTeX] babel

2012/9/3 Javier Bezos lis...@tex-tipografia.com: François, Some times ago, I read that babel will be compatible with xelatex. I would like to use babel with french and sanskrit languages, do I have any chance to succeed? Maintainig babel is important for (pdf)latex which is still in use

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Hi Kiddies, I am getting a good laugh with this thread! Yes, there are caveats to the arguments. The important thing is that there is someone/ a team that is willing to improve the behavior of Babel and maybe teaching it some new tricks while not breaking it! The benefits may only be for a few

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Is there a mailing list/development repository for babel? -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Do you want to say that Leslie Lamport lied when stating that LaTeX (even v. 2.09) is international? Do you want to say that the babel Many years ago a friend of mine prepared his MSc thesis using nroff and the text he was setting was Greek. Does this mean that people should maintain nroff?

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:33:48AM -0700, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote: Try to write Greek with babel and with XeTeX: babal is just pain in @$$ whilst XeLaTeX simply rocks! Do you understand now what I am saying? You are comparing apples and oranges here.

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Try to write Greek with babel and with XeTeX: babal is just pain in @$$ whilst XeLaTeX simply rocks! Do you understand now what I am saying? You are comparing apples and oranges here. You think so? OK, I can live with this kind of critique. A.S.   -- Apostolos

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

2012/5/4 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com: German, Italian, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian, Classical Greek, Modern Greek, French, Plattdeutsh, Bahasa Indonesia, Vietnamese, Mongolian, Try to write Greek with babel and with XeTeX: babal is just pain in @$$ whilst XeLaTeX simply rocks!

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 03:19:16AM -0700, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote: Try to write Greek with babel and with XeTeX: babal is just pain in @$$ whilst XeLaTeX simply rocks! Do you understand now what I am saying? You are comparing apples and oranges here. You think so? OK, I can

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Well, when you compare a LaTeX package to a TeX engine you either don’t know what you are talking about or deliberately committing a logical fallacy, pick your choice. Do you think I don't know the difference between a typesetting engine and a package? When I talk about babel I mean

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 06:33:03AM -0700, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote: Well, when you compare a LaTeX package to a TeX engine you either don’t know what you are talking about or deliberately committing a logical fallacy, pick your choice. Do you think I don't know the difference

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

If you think LaTeX is too archaic and should be put in museum (I do), that is a different story. At least we agree to something! In addition, I feel that we need to get rid of many other programs, macro-packages, etc. For example, there is absolutely no reason to maintain XDVI. A.S.  

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Although I don't use babel nowadays, I would like to thank to Javier Bezos his effort and time in maintaining and improving it. That's one of the best things of the *TeX world, that you have options to choose what it is better for you. Perhaps XeTeX is great for some of us today; perhaps tomorrow

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Message - From: Juan Francisco Fraile Vicente To: Apostolos Syropoulos ; Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms Sent: 04 May 2012 15:19 Subject: Re: [XeTeX] Babel Although I don't use babel nowadays, I would like to thank to Javier Bezos his effort and time in maintaining

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

To: Apostolos Syropoulos ; Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms Sent: 04 May 2012 15:19 Subject: Re: [XeTeX] Babel Although I don't use babel nowadays, I would like to thank to Javier Bezos his effort and time in maintaining and improving it. That's one of the best things of the *TeX world

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

If you think LaTeX is too archaic and should be put in museum (I do), that is a different story. At least we agree to something! In addition, I feel that we need to get rid of many other programs, macro-packages, etc. For example, there is absolutely no reason to maintain XDVI. A.S.

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

into a nostalgic reverie... John - Original Message - From: Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms xetex@tug.org Sent: 04 May 2012 16:11 Subject: Re: [XeTeX] Babel 2012/5/4 John Was john@ntlworld.com: I'm not going to get involved

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Telling other people what they should maintain and what they *must* abandon feels very arrogant. Why should a certain A.S. decide what is worth the effort and what is not? Arrogant in what way? Have you ever tried to compile the TeX tree? In many cases people have to invent stupid

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

- Original Message - From: Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms xetex@tug.org Sent: 04 May 2012 16:11 Subject: Re: [XeTeX] Babel 2012/5/4 John Was john@ntlworld.com: I'm not going to get involved in the polemics of this thread

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

2012/5/4 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com: Telling other people what they should maintain and what they *must* abandon feels very arrogant. Why should a certain A.S. decide what is worth the effort and what is not? Arrogant in what way? Have you ever tried to compile the TeX

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

El 04/05/2012 9:24, Vafa Khalighi escribió: Is there a mailing list/development repository for babel? Sure. The repository is on: http://www.latex-project.org/svnroot/latex2e-public/required/babel/ Until now, there are only changes in the test files. As to the mailing list, I'm not sure.

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

- Original Message - From: Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms xetex@tug.org Sent: 04 May 2012 16:35 Subject: Re: [XeTeX] Babel Telling other people what they should maintain and what they *must* abandon feels very arrogant. Why

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

On 04/05/2012 17:48, Javier Bezos wrote: As to the mailing list, I'm not sure. There is the latex-l list, but it's intended mainly for LaTeX3, and babel is a LaTeX2e (and Plain) thing, but after cleaning up babel there will be very likely further work on a new multilingual core for LaTeX3,

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Don't you feel yourself in a loop? If they patch it, they apparently want to use it and if they want to use it, it is not useless for them because if it were useless, they would not use it and thus they would have no reason to patch it. No! The problem is that people should start saying

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

I think it's arrogant in the strict sense that you arrogate to yourself the right to tell others what tasks they should or should not be engaging in, and you characterize the activity of those persisting in the tasks you would like to prohibit as 'stupid' (as in your most recent

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

2012/5/4 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com: No! The problem is that people should start saying that certain parts of the old TeX world are irrelevant and so they should not be part of any TeX distribution. For example, on a set of recently compiled You don't understand the idea of

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

On May 4, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote: Don't you feel yourself in a loop? If they patch it, they apparently want to use it and if they want to use it, it is not useless for them because if it were useless, they would not use it and thus they would have no reason to patch

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

2012/5/4 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com: Don't you feel yourself in a loop? If they patch it, they apparently want to use it and if they want to use it, it is not useless for them because if it were useless, they would not use it and thus they would have no reason to patch it.

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 09:44:22PM +0200, Zdenek Wagner wrote: 2012/5/4 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com: The question is: why keeping the tex binary when the pdftex binary can do the same things? If you throw away the tex binary, then you can get rid of most useless binaries that

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Hi Vafa, Can your fixes be ported to upstream (that is babel itself)? That reduces the amount of code you have to maintain as things get fixed at the source. For some parts of bidi, that should be the ultimate aim anyway I guess? Best, Dee On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Vafa Khalighi

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

bidi is LPPL. You can borrow codes from bidi (and I do not mind if you take code from bidi and do not mention it comes from bidi) but I have no plan to remove any code from bidi package. My aim, at least, is to make it as stable as it can be. On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Diederick C.

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

I am a scientist, TeX is not my primary job, it is a hobby that I use So you are a scientist and others are what? Idiots? use as my hobby. I cannot tell my customers, please, wait a year or so, I have to develop a new piece of software. Both in science and That is your problem! Not mine, and

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

2012/5/3 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com: Then use them, but please do not ask for updates! People should not waste their precious time with outdated tools and packages. Babel is the LaTeX standard for multilingual texts. Until something else takes it's place, it must be maintained.

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Babel is the LaTeX standard for multilingual texts. Until something else takes it's place, it must be maintained.   For LaTeX not XeLaTeX! And LaTeX is not the standard for multilingual typesetting. A.S. -- Apostolos Syropoulos Xanthi, Greece

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

2012/5/3 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com: I am a scientist, TeX is not my primary job, it is a hobby that I use So you are a scientist and others are what? Idiots? Have I written anything like that? You have written that development of indic scripts support in luatex is a job for a

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

2012/5/3 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com: Babel is the LaTeX standard for multilingual texts. Until something else takes it's place, it must be maintained. For LaTeX not XeLaTeX! And LaTeX is not the standard for multilingual typesetting. Do you want to say that Leslie Lamport

[XeTeX] Babel

Hi all, Babel gets back on track and it is again actively maintained. The goals are mainly to fix bugs, to make it compatible with XeTeX and LuaTeX (as far as possible), and perhaps to add some minor new features (provided they are backward compatible). No attempt will be done to take full

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Javier, that's great news! I suppose you're part of the team developing it? Glad to see the ball gets rolling again for Babel. Arthur -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

babel can use bidi package for its bidirectional typesetting rather than its own (rlbabel.def) which has too many problems. On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Javier Bezos lis...@tex-tipografia.comwrote: Hi all, Babel gets back on track and it is again actively maintained. The goals are mainly

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

And bidi, which rewrites half texmf/tex/latex/* tree is problem free :) On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 04:59:02PM +1000, Vafa Khalighi wrote: babel can use bidi package for its bidirectional typesetting rather than its own (rlbabel.def) which has too many problems. On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:54 PM,

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

No attempt will be done to take full advantage of the features provided by XeTeX and LuaTeX, which would require a completely new core (as for example polyglossia or as part of LaTeX3). Your comments or suggestions (or questions!) are welcomed. IMHO it is better to have on good project

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

if you do not like it, do not use it. Simple! On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote: And bidi, which rewrites half texmf/tex/latex/* tree is problem free :) On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 04:59:02PM +1000, Vafa Khalighi wrote: babel can use bidi package for its

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

On 02-05-2012 15:01, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote: IMHO it is better to have on good project instead of two or three bad projects. babel served well the LaTeX community but Ι don't see why it should be updated? And please, no one doing serious work in languages other than English should consider

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Why shouldn't I consider using TeX? (I am Portuguese, by the way.) Because XeTeX and luaTeX do a far better job! First you don't need tricks to use UTF-8 and you don't have to create zillions of files to make a TrueType partially usable. Do you need more reasons? A.S.  

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Sure, so please don't make it required by a base package like babel. On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 12:02:29AM +1000, Vafa Khalighi wrote: if you do not like it, do not use it. Simple! On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote: And bidi, which rewrites half

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

What are you talking about? On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote: Sure, so please don't make it required by a base package like babel. On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 12:02:29AM +1000, Vafa Khalighi wrote: if you do not like it, do not use it. Simple! On

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

May be you should try reading what you are replying to, starting with the quoted mails below (in the reverse order that resulted from your top posting). On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 12:38:00AM +1000, Vafa Khalighi wrote: What are you talking about? On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Khaled Hosny

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Arthur, Javier, that's great news! I suppose you're part of the team developing it? Yes, I am. Javier -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

2012/5/2 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com: Why shouldn't I consider using TeX? (I am Portuguese, by the way.) Because XeTeX and luaTeX do a far better job! First you don't need tricks to use UTF-8 and you don't have to create zillions of files to make a TrueType partially usable.

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

That was not my point. The point was, if one person does not like a package, it does not mean everyone else does not like it. BTW, based on what Bezos said, I do not think there will be any changes to rlbabel.def. bidi package is quite heaveily used and at least it is better/more complete than any

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

I didn’t say it is bad or people should not be using it, but indirectly claiming it is “problem-free” is very strong claim given how evasive it is. 17000+ lines of code rewriting parts of a 100+ packages is not something I’d force into people by making it a hard dependency of base package like

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

babel can use bidi package for its bidirectional typesetting rather than its own (rlbabel.def) which has too many problems. Which ones? The LaTeX bugs database registers almost no bugs related to bidirectional typesetting. Having information on the problems are essential to fix them. Please,

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

So why bidi changes too many packages? maybe one simple example demonstrates this: try \documentclass{article} \usepackage{lettrine} \makeatletter \input{rlbabel.def} \@rltrue \makeatother \begin{document} \lettrine{L}{orem} Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry.

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Which ones? The LaTeX bugs database registers almost no bugs related to bidirectional typesetting. Having information on the problems are essential to fix them. Please, send bug reports or explain the problems and the expected behaviour. Javier Please read the archives of ivritex mailing

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

I did not say it is problem free. I exactly said babel can use bidi package for its bidirectional typesetting rather than its own (rlbabel.def) which has too many problems.. I only claimed that rlbabel.def has too many problems and bidi does not have these. I do not see why this is strong. If you

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Another one: \documentclass[twocolumn]{article} \makeatletter \input{rlbabel.def} \@rltrue \makeatother \begin{document} \tableofcontents \section{Test 1} Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

Another one: \documentclass{article} \makeatletter \input{rlbabel.def} \@rltrue \makeatother \begin{document} \begin{equation} 1+2=3 \end{equation} \begin{eqnarray} 1+2=3 \end{eqnarray} \end{document} Problem: first equation is on left, second equation on right. Expected Behaviour: both

Re: [XeTeX] Babel

http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/36982/babel-l-command-reverses-letters-inserts-symbol and http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/24421/algorithmic-babel-with-hebrew-conflict-numbering-missing http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/32220/algorithmicx-conflicts-with-babel-with-hebrew just

  1   2   >