Hi lots of thinking here ;-) answers inline.
On Mon, 29 Sept 2025 at 11:49, Ihor Radchenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez <[email protected]> writes: > > > I see and I'm struggling to find a better approach for this. At this > > point, font management seems more > > tailored to people like myself, coming from a LaTeX world and > > regaining the control over my fonts > > without having to write a lot either in the LATEX_HEADER or in an > > extra .tex file to include. > > > > A person "new" to this would have to resort to the manual of the > > backend [sz]?he chooses in the document > > to understand what can and what can't be done. > > > > My approach was to make it reasonably easy to map from the examples in > > the polyglossia/babel manuals > > to the configuration. > > I understand. But I would prefer to make the configuration approachable > to people familiar with latex and also to people unfamiliar. > While we do need to keep close resemblance to what is done on latex > level (by necessity and also to make life easy for latex-familiars), I'd > prefer to keep things as simple as possible for people unfamiliar with > latex. As I have stated before, there are differences in the way you code the font configurations in babel and polyglossia which would make them odd for people who are familiar with either package. In addition to that, both have their unique features. So having a common configuration base would mean that a user would need to know the specifics from early on. My fear is that this would be a considerable entry barrier for people unfamiliar with LaTeX. I'd rather keep them, therefore, separated. > From my further reading and limited understanding, it looks like > polyglossia does not allow separate fonts for rm/sf/tt font families. In > contrast, babel _demands_ specifying each font family explicitly. > Is my understanding correct? Not exactly. And that's part of my taking time to answer... The differences are quite subtle, but they do exist. For example, babel demands a default font (w/o family identifier), while polyglossia doesn't. I've used polyglossia for more time and than babel, because it is what I was told to use it for a collaborative article. The rest of the time, I've written scientific papers in English and didn't really need either. I started to take babel more seriously when hacking the experter. The current status is good and it covers all common cases. However I have found a feature you need for specific configurations. There you need to integrate to generate the \babelprovide{} command to fine tune babel. The current split between the polyglossia and the babel configurations is really helpful there. I would rather finish the process as is now and then think about a possible merge of both variables in a new one. Introducing it, we could talk about compromises and give the users a coarse (for all) and a fine-tune button (for the experts). WDYT? > -- > 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> Best, /PA PS: Could you please backport the two last commits in the feature branch to main? It's a bugfix. -- Fragen sind nicht da, um beantwortet zu werden, Fragen sind da um gestellt zu werden Georg Kreisler Sagen's Paradeiser, write BE! Year 1 of the New Koprocracy
