On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 11:46:08AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 10/01/2023 à 03:42, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > > The attached patch works around an AMS book unicode issue, as discussed > > here: > > > > > > https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/671116/how-to-find-and-fix-the-origin-of-invalid-unicode-character-generated-by-lyx > > > > Disadvantage of the workaround is the added dependency, textcase.sty, which > > is not needed for AMS book documents without unicode. If this is a problem, > > I suppose we could add a new layout flag that, if activated, loads textcase > > if there is unicode. > > > > Attached is an example .lyx file that does not compile without the patch > > and does compile with the patch. > > > > Thoughts? > > Since this is not needed with latest LaTeX,
The workaround is not needed? I think it is needed until AMS book is updated (which is not clean if/when it will). For example, I have an updated TeX Live 2022 and the workaround is needed. > I'd suggest maybe a "Requires > makeuppercase" that triggers code checking whether textcase.sty may be > needed. (we can do that, right?) I can look into that. You mean the goal is that on older LaTeX distributions, the workaround may not be needed? > Is this only an amsbook issue? What about book.cls? I do not think book.cls needs the workaround. When I change the example to Book (Standard), it compiles fine without the workaround. > > By the way, should the "amsbook" dependency in \DeclareLaTeXClass be there > > regardless of this patch? > > AFAIR, this is the default when no dependency is given (require > layoutname.cls) Ah makes sense. Thanks, Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
