Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Actually, Mostafa has fixed the last *two* issues for Farsi, but not
for Arabic, so as not to interfere with ArabTex. But at least the
know-how is already in the sources. We only need to figure out how to
allow the option of either Arabi or ArabTeX, so that one doesn't break
the other. I think Mostafa had an interesting idea for this, of
defining two Arabic languages.
This doesn't work. One version has to call ArabTeX in the preamble but
arabi wil be used when it is installed due to its babel support except
of the \R command. This leads to inconsistent output. And ArabTeX
doesn't come with an input encoding for Windows.
So why not use arabi for baoth, Farsi and Arabic. When there are isues
with the arabi package in terms of resulting font, ligatures, etc. we
should report it to the arabi people and I'm sure they will fix it for
their next release.
I'm not sure I follow you. I'm talking about only Arabic, for the
moment. One of the problems that we have is that there are two separate
packages which can be used for Arabic: ArabTeX (which is what LyX
traditionally uses for Arabic), and Arabi, which LyX now uses for Farsi,
and which is babel-based (?).
The problem is, some thing need to be done one way for ArabTeX, and a
different way for Arabi. For example, do we use \R or \textAR to switch
to RTL? Deciding on one of these ways will mean that one of the above
packages can't be used in LyX.
So perhaps there could be two languages: "Arabic (Arabi)" and "Arabic
(ArabTeX)". We would treat them as two totally separate languages, for
one we would do everything the Arabi way, and for the other the ArabTeX
way. That way, we could start using Arabi for Arabic, and still provide
backwards compatibility by allowing ArabTeX.
Does this make sense, and is it possible?
Dov
