Max Nikulin writes: > Characters from Latin scripts, the set is wider than latin-1 but does > not cover other languages. I do not dispute that font encoding is > Unicode (if it can be stated so), usually support of Unicode is > associated with smooth experience with wide range of languages.
A Unicode font is a Unicode-encoded font. It can have 2 glyphs or 2000. But it's still a Unicode font. > But for default settings getting blank instead of text in some routine > notes is hardly acceptable. Unfortunately \setmainfont is not enough. > Starting for "the simplest of basic" on the next step a user may > notice that bold... Please, compile this: \documentclass{article} \usepackage{fontspec} \setmainfont{FreeSerif} \begin{document} Abc — Αλφάβητο — Азбука… \emph{Abc — Αλφάβητο — Азбука…} \textbf{Abc — Αλφάβητο — Азбука…} \textbf{\emph{Abc — Αλφάβητο — Азбука…}} With \setmainfont{FreeSerif} I'm telling LuaTeX to use the full FreeSerif family as the main roman font, which includes bold, italic, and bold italic. It is the duty of the user (at least the LuaTeX user) to know that this family is present in his/her system and includes those styles. > or typewriter text is missing. \setmainfont{FreeSerif} \setsansfont{FreeSans} \setmonofont{FreeMono} I honestly don't understand why you find it unacceptable that the responsibility for managing fonts and the languages associated with those fonts falls on the user. It is to be expected. And it is something that has finally corrected a great anomaly that TeX and LaTeX has always been dragging along for almost its entire history, and that put it (being more powerful and sophisticated) behind other types of typesetting software like Indesign or quark. LuaTeX and XeTeX are digital typesetting systems. They are not word processors. The user who wants fine tuning in this regard will have to read the fontspec manual and the babel or polyglossia manual thoroughly. I can agree with you that the choice of the "default" font (Latin Modern) is not exactly happy, due to the little coverage that this font has for non-Latin scripts. But the demanding LuaTeX user is rarely going to use latin modern (I've never used it in my life for real production). I think I made it clear in the first post of this thread what kind of use cases LuaTeX is suitable for. If someone finds that unacceptable, of course you'd better use pdfLaTeX. By the way, in pdfLaTeX you can't write Greek out of the box, nor Arabic, nor Japanese, etc., etc. So I don't see where the difference is. And even so, I insist, it is not necessary to go into typographical depths. A configuration like the one I put before (FreeSerif/FreeSans/FreeMono) will satisfy 90% of lazy users or those who want to use LaTeX in autopilot mode. Is it possible to implement all that in Org in such a way that a minimum preamble is generated with what is necessary? How to define "what is necessary", when there are thousands of options in fontspec and many ways to declare and define font families and font features with fontspec, with babel and with polyglossia? That's not counting specialized packages for Arabic, Japanese, etc. (and I am writing a package for greek). I think doing something like that in Org would be highly intrusive on Org's part. Maybe something very, very, very basic and minimal would work in order to avoid those empty spaces that seem unacceptable to you, maybe three variables for setmainfont/-sansfont/-monofont[1]. Going further, in my opinion, makes no sense. I think it is much more important to unify in org the issue of languages, polyglossia and babel, because as it is now it collects an obsolete scenario. [1] In my opinion, something similar to what pandoc does by default, using the iftex package, would suffice: \usepackage{iftex} \ifPDFTeX \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} \usepackage{textcomp} \else \usepackage{fontspec} \usepackage{unicode-math} \defaultfontfeatures{Scale=MatchLowercase} \defaultfontfeatures[\rmfamily]{Ligatures=TeX} \setmainfont{FreeSerif} \setsansfont{FreeSans} \setmonofont{FreeMono} \fi