On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Uwe Stöhr <uwesto...@web.de> wrote: > Am 26.05.2013 02:24, schrieb Scott Kostyshak: > > >> Good point. No, I do not think that would be good. I think that if >> pdflatex fails, then a default format should definitely be set. If one >> of the others fails, things are less clear. I think the best thing is >> to choose a few. Currently we only test latex, pdflatex, and luatex. >> That's why I've been focusing on those. > > > What about XeTeX? This is more mature than luaTeX. I recommend to skip the > testing for luaTeX for now, see below.
Works for me. Let's see if anyone else has thoughts on this. > Concerning Hebrew and all RTL languages: > RtL languages don't work with luaTeX if babel is used. The alternative is to > use polyglossia (XeTeX's babel replacement) but then one need the luabidi > package. This package was never officially released and its last revision is > from 2009. The latest polyglossia version nevertheless supports luabidi as > it seems the package is ready to be used. The problem is that luabidi is not > on CTAN and is therefore not part of any LaTeX installation by default and > can also no be installed like other packages. > > So we can currently not support luaTeX support for RTL langages. Jürgen, > please correct me when I am wrong here. > > > That is what I meant with XeTeX is more mature. One of the development goals > of XeTeX was to support one day all writing systems on earth and it can > indeed handle even exotic scripts like Coptic. However, compiling the > Hewbrew files with XeTeX works fine. Thank you for the explanations. XeTeX does sound like it has a lot of potential. Scott
