Maxim Nikulin <maniku...@gmail.com> writes: > Do Unicode TeX engines support such combination of fonts?
Yes, they do. My rather long response was due to my impression that you are quite surprised that not everything is supported with the default configuration as you expected. I wanted to highlight that it is even today a rather hard problem to mix different scripts (even if typographic quality does not matter) and that there are quite different expectations of what a sensible default should look like. > There are two quite distinct cases: documents with carefully chosen > fonts (e.g. a book) and everyday notes when particular font is not > so important. Yes, indeed. And I hope you see that these two requirements are not easily satisfied with the same default configuration (and I would say this is a understatement). The LaTeX community has chosen to prefer a minimum typographic quality for their defaults and the majority still concentrates more on latin scripts. And as I said: A good multi-lingual support for Org is a really huge undertaking. Unicode alone solves only a rather minor part of these challenges. > I mean detection if LuaLaTeX or XeLaTeX is usable from Org code. Org should be rather flexible about the configured engines. There are reasons why today all three engine are quite alive and used by different users. I think it would be possible to improve the support for all three engines, make the selection easier for the Org user and go some first steps in better supporting different scripts and languages. But it is not easy and not a matter of a handful lines of code. > Randomly chosen examples: "日本", "多喝水", "📞". The last glyph ("TELEPHONE RECEIVER") is not visible for me. Remember, that Unicode gets expanded quite often and it is not easy for font developers to keep up. I still think that the expectation, that Org and/or LaTeX will support the whole Unicode range out of the box is a little bit too far fetched. -- Until the next mail..., Stefan.