On 2014-09-22 22:04, Axel E. Retif wrote:
On 09/22/2014 08:42 PM, Mike Maxwell wrote:
I guess these jokers haven't heard of Unicode. Are they stuck back in
the 1990s?
Are you and Philip Taylor even aware that you're replying directly to
an arXiv administrator?
I think arXiv and Cornell University are doing a great service to the
scientific community and public in general and deserve more respect.
For the record, I was on the other side of this issue in the early
2000s, and was told I should move into the 21st century. The person who
told me that was right, and I was wrong. Having been converted, I feel
the need to proselytize; apologies, though, for coming across as brash.
I'm a linguist, so I constantly deal with other scripts. Unicode is
essential for our work, and its use has been routine in linguistics and
computational linguistics publications and data archiving for over a
decade. All the language archiving sites I know about will accept
*only* Unicode (or at the very least discourage non-Unicode
submissions).
So no, I don't understand why an archiving service would not allow
Unicode-encoded papers, even if it does require xelatex. (For the
record, I think the font is a red herring, since afaik the font license
issue comes up regardless of whether you're using latex or xelatex.)
Mike Maxwell
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
