>From what I read you would prefer to have fonts as the keyword. However that goes _against_ the philosophy of *all* LaTeX packages (and compilers) I'm trying to handle. They all map LaTeX font families and/or a human languages to system font files.
And for the script is it approx. the same... Our example translates to "human" as: If Emacs finds an emoji, load "noto color emoji" and delegate to lualatex to see if that contains the missing character. The extra property there (mode=harf) tells lualatex to use the HarfBuzz renderer for glyphs contained in this font file if they are needed. Which, I think, is easier to understand. I struggle with your approach, because for me it is contra-natura after using lualatex for some time now. And I wonder if it a reminiscence of pdflatex. There you load a package to get a specific font or set of fonts for a document, I recognise that the package names in pdflatex are sometimes cryptic and plain system font names are easier to handle. Plus the mechanism to map to the roman, sans or mono fonts is completely hidden, So, in that case, the mapping system fonts to package(s) is very helpful. But here we are dealing directly with (the easier to handle) system font names. Sorry for insisting., /PA PS: Look at the latest commits in the feature branch. I hope they clarify your doubts a bit more. On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 at 17:58, Ihor Radchenko <[email protected]> wrote: > Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez <[email protected]> writes: > > > tell me how the ':font' property in org-latex-fontspec-config is not > > acceptable for you, > > while you have no problem in having it for polyglossia and babel. The > > current definitions are > > > > (latex-family :font ... :features ...) - in fontspec > > vs > > (language :variant ... :font :props ...) - in babel and polyglossia > > I have the same problems with language (for reasons of uniformity). > Remember one of my earlier examples: > > ;; Default roman font for hindi, used instead of Source Code Pro > ("Noto Serif Devanagari" :features "Script=Devanagari" :lang "hindi" > :family "rm") > > Note how I also moved the language to :lang property. > > > If you so much worry about uniformity, I would very willingly change > > :features for :props > > in org-latex-fontspec and split the fallback to > > (script :font ... :props ...) > > and then we would have exactly the same scheme which is acceptable for > > babel and polyglossia everywhere. > > Having consistent naming is what I want yes. (I have no preference > whether we consistently use :features or consistently using :props > everywhere) > > > Merry Christmas, /PA > > > > PS: look at the last push with the modification of the docstring to see > if > > it makes more sense to you now. > > FONT-FAMILITY is better than FONT-NAME, yes. But this does not solve my > confusion about using font family vs script. > > -- > 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> > -- Fragen sind nicht da, um beantwortet zu werden, Fragen sind da um gestellt zu werden Georg Kreisler "Sagen's Paradeiser" (ORF: Als Radiohören gefährlich war) => write BE! Year 1 of the New Koprocracy
