Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Am 03.04.2014 22:12, schrieb Georg Baum: > >> I understand your motivation to help people in developing countries (and >> I appreciate it), but please do not assume that your proposed solution of >> a particular problem is the only one which is feasible. Claiming that LyX >> supports a new language although it was not tested enough is an absolute >> no- go. We cannot lie to our users. > > I know this is a difficult issue I just wanted to point out my thinking. I > don't claim that this the best way to go. I only think for some cases we > need more flexibility. We are not lying to our users if something is not > working perfectly.
If we were not aware of problems (or only minor problems) I'd agree, but Jean-Marc clearly stated that there are fundamental problems. He wrote on first of april "So Uwe, there is no chance that Urdu can work right now.". Therefore I still maintain that we are currently lying. > Software can always have bugs. Users who don't use Urdu > won't be affected so that we still have a stable release for the cast > majority. This does not contradict my request: If the urdu language is marked as experimental then everybody not using urdu knows that he does not need to care. >> However, if a new language which is not tested enough is clearly marked >> as experimental I don't see any problem: People who want a stable >> solution are warned that they should not use it, and people in desperate >> need of a document processor in their native language can try it out and >> contribute improvements. > > I could add a note to > http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/NewInLyX21 > that fonts within LyX don't yet have ligatures for Urdu > Should I? Yes please, and please also write that there are very likely more fundamental problems. > btw. Jamil will help us out testing and implementing Urdu screen fonts. > Great! Yes, indeed! Georg
