On 11 Mar 2010, at 17:48, Meho R. wrote: > As noted, because bidi isn't the creator of the PDF file and still claims it > is. "Created by Xe(La)TeX with bidi package" (something like "Created by > LaTeX with hyperref package") would be a little bit more acceptable, don't > you think?
Personally, I think packages should not be doing this at all (though I believe hyperref has a long history of it). What if you use both hyperref *and* bidi -- who wins? What if every package author decides to start rewriting the Creator string? The only time a package should override the default metadata is when the user explicitly specifies it, IMO. JK > From: Vafa Khalighi <[email protected]> > To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 12:33:03 PM > Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"? > > This is question for Vafa: can you explain what is the reason that in .pdf > file, created using xelatex+polyglossia with use of arabic as secondary > language (the main is latin), bidi is credited as "creator"? I do understand > that bidi is used for arabic, but, with due respect, I think it's very unfair > to declare it as creator application instead of xe(la)tex. > > I have done this because someone in the past requested it. Why is this > unfair? > > -- > Best wishes, > Vafa Khalighi -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
