Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez <paag...@gmail.com> writes: >> You are replacing amsmath with mathspec in xetex and unicode-math in >> lualatex. >> > > Yes I was tempted to use unicode-math in both, but refrained...
Looks like modern unicode-math supports both, so why not? > According to https://ctan.org/pkg/unicode-math, >> >> here are some differences between the legacy mathematical >> definitions in LATEX and amsmath, and the Unicode mathematics >> definitions. Care should be taken when transitioning from a legacy >> workflow to a Unicode-based one. >> >> We need to explore this further. > > I was just trying to mimic what pandoc is doing as per your suggestion ;-) My suggestion was "check out how pandoc handles the problem". Whether we need to do the same should be judged separately, considering our viewpoint. Note that I am not saying that we should discard the idea. AFAIU, unicode-math is aiming to replace amsmath completely. So, it should be *mostly* working fine. What I am asking you and other interested people is finding what may be broken if we switch from amsmath to unicode-math. Maybe we can work around some breakage. Maybe the breakage can be ignored. Who knows. I just want several people to look for what kinds of bad things we may do to Org users by replacing amsmath with unicode-math. >> So, it may not be wise to use mathspec. > > So, do you suggest to stay with unicode-math for everybody? I am inclined to this idea, yes. > ... That would be > the other > path to go. OK, yes, warning everybody using lualatex/xetex that we are > using unicode-math > and that they may need to fine-tune their documents... Of course. But we need to make sure that it is just "fine-tune". Not "everything broken with cryptic errors". -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode maintainer, Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>. Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>, or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
