On 2017-10-27, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: --]
> Dear all, > Because of the dashes and ZWSP situation, we do not produce an > equivalent document in some cases (I'm still curious for a definition of > what an "equivalent" document specifically means). I would define "equivalent" as "produces the same output". (This leaves still some twiggle room like "latex output or pdf output?".) We violated this "equivalence principle" in 2.3: while literal and ligature dashes use the same charcter in PDF, the difference in latex resulted in different line breaks in some occasions. We violate this "equivalence principle" again in 2.3rc1 not only because of ZWSP, but also because some 2.1 documents may have different line breaks. > This issue could be interpreted as data loss, and in the past we have > had a rule of not releasing an rc if there is known data loss. > My current opinion is that we should make an exception and just go > forward with rc1 to get it out of the door. This way, we can get more > testing while we debate more about the best way to resolve this issue > after rc1. > Do you support going forward with rc1 despite this data loss issue? I > would need some explicit support before going forward, since we would be > making an exception to an important rule. I am fine with going forward with rc1, as the data loss is a rare case and only affects formatting (we loose an ivisible character). I hope we can resolve the issue before releasing 2.3 proper, though. Thanks, Günter
