On 2010-11-27, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Guenter Milde wrote:
>> On 2010-11-26, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>> > Guenter Milde wrote:
>> >> Both xelatex and luatlaex can use TeX fonts and PSNFSS:
>> > OK, I tried this now. The two engines indeed seem to be able to deal with
>> > these font packages
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 02:26:44PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > Guenter Milde wrote:
> > > > Regarding the naming: it is IMO best to call the button "use System
> > > > fonts".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I won't touch the naming anymore.
> >
> > I agree with G
Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2010-11-26, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > Guenter Milde wrote:
> >> Both xelatex and luatlaex can use TeX fonts and PSNFSS:
> > OK, I tried this now. The two engines indeed seem to be able to deal with
> > these font packages. However, as soon as the fontspec package is lo
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > Guenter Milde wrote:
> > > Regarding the naming: it is IMO best to call the button "use System
> > > fonts".
> >
> >
> >
> > I won't touch the naming anymore.
>
> I agree with Günter. Please reconsider.
Well, my initial proposal was "Use System Fonts". Then people
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:25:51AM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Guenter Milde wrote:
> > Regarding the naming: it is IMO best to call the button "use System
> > fonts".
>
> I won't touch the naming anymore.
I agree with Günter. Please reconsider.
--
Enrico
Guenter Milde wrote:
> Regarding the naming: it is IMO best to call the button "use System
> fonts".
I won't touch the naming anymore.
Jürgen
On 2010-11-26, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Guenter Milde wrote:
>> Both xelatex and luatlaex can use TeX fonts and PSNFSS:
> OK, I tried this now. The two engines indeed seem to be able to deal with
> these font packages. However, as soon as the fontspec package is loaded, it
> doesn't work anymor
On 2010-11-25, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Guenter Milde wrote:
>> Please allow parallel specification of TeXFonts and SystemFonts.
> I think this is plain overkill. The (probably few) people who really need
> this can easily achieve it by using a portmanteau master file that just
> includes t
Le 26 nov. 2010 à 12:15, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit :
> I don't think so; where did you get this info from?
I probably misread the recent thread on lyx-users about LuaTeX and
XeTeX typesetting.
JMarc
Guenter Milde wrote:
> Both xelatex and luatlaex can use TeX fonts and PSNFSS:
>
> \documentclass{minimal}
> \usepackage{fixltx2e}
> \usepackage{bookman}
> \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
> \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
>
> \begin{document}
>
> Hallo Welt!
>
> \end{document}
OK, I tried this now. The t
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> I thought the typesetting algorithm was supposed to be better with more
> action on the font spacing (which is different from being able to use
> NewCenturyOldStyleCondensedBlack as main font).
I don't think so; where did you get this info from?
You can use (with Xe
Le 26/11/2010 11:42, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit :
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Even with a tooltip? Or
[ ] improved typesetting (xetex, luatex)
Yes. I'm not even sure it's adaequate. Is XeTeX/LuaTeX really "improved"? This
really depends on what you want to achieve.
I really think the "fonts"
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Even with a tooltip? Or
>
> [ ] improved typesetting (xetex, luatex)
Yes. I'm not even sure it's adaequate. Is XeTeX/LuaTeX really "improved"? This
really depends on what you want to achieve.
I really think the "fonts" description is most adequate, the more so if i
Le 26/11/2010 10:30, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit :
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
[ ] use extended typesetting capabilities
This is a bit too vague for my taste.
Even with a tooltip? Or
[ ] improved typesetting (xetex, luatex)
JMarc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> [ ] use extended typesetting capabilities
This is a bit too vague for my taste.
Jürgen
Le 25/11/2010 10:38, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit :
And an argument against separate font combos. How should we know which font
(OpenType or tex) is desired without that checkbox?
Since xtex is not only about fonts, but also algorithms, what about
[ ] use extended typesetting capabilities
JMarc
Guenter Milde wrote:
>> Again, we just need to know in advance if we use XeTeX/LuaTeX
>
> HTML, LyXHTML, Docbook, (+ any custom output format that uses System
> Fonts)
DocBook is different. We have separate document classes. LyXHTML is not
different yet, since it does not use system fonts (but
Guenter Milde wrote:
> Both xelatex and luatlaex can use TeX fonts and PSNFSS:
OK, another argument for the checkbox! We just need to add xetex (and maybe
luatex) to the non-texfonts list of possible output formats.
But this needs to be tested first (and can be added easily within the 2.0
cycl
On 2010-11-23, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Guenter Milde wrote:
>> * XeTeX can also use OpenType fonts that are not system-wide installed as
>> well as "traditional" LaTeX fonts.
> With "System Fonts", I do not mean "System-wide" fonts, but fonts
> avaliable to the OS (as opposed to specialized
On 2010-11-23, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> What about useNonLaTeXFonts? useNormalFonts? Use OpenTypeFonts?
>> I still do not like System.
> OK, I understand that. I'm fine with useNonLaTeXFonts. useOpenTypeFonts
> is not really appropriate, since also TrueType can b
On 2010-11-23, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 04:58:19PM +0100, Liviu Andronic wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> > A google search gives ~8000 hits for "latex fonts" and ~10 hits
>> > for "tex fonts". That's more that one order of magnit
On 2010-11-23, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Again, we just need to know in advance if we use XeTeX/LuaTeX
HTML, LyXHTML, Docbook, (+ any custom output format that uses System
Fonts)
> OR anything else (because this has consequences for the GUI, namely the
> font combos). Everything else can be
On Tuesday 23 November 2010 21:53:21 Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Now having Lua in TeX we should also embedded it in LyX and replace all
> Python scripts with Lua. Lua is the future! ;)
>
> Peter
There are Lua bindings for python so I don not see what is the problem. :-)
--
José Abílio
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:31:29AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> On 23.11.2010 23:38, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:58:52PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >> On 23.11.2010 22:53, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >>> Now having Lua in TeX we should also embedded it in LyX and replace all
On 23.11.2010 23:38, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:58:52PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> On 23.11.2010 22:53, Peter Kümmel wrote:
>>> Now having Lua in TeX we should also embedded it in LyX and replace all
>>> Python scripts with Lua.
>>> Lua is the future! ;)
>>
>> Enrico,
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:58:52PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> On 23.11.2010 22:53, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> > Now having Lua in TeX we should also embedded it in LyX and replace all
> > Python scripts with Lua.
> > Lua is the future! ;)
>
> Enrico, shouldn't we replace all QProcess/multithreaded c
Peter Kümmel wrote:
> On 23.11.2010 22:53, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> > Now having Lua in TeX we should also embedded it in LyX and replace all
> > Python scripts with Lua.
> > Lua is the future! ;)
>
> And we should do it immediately before the LyX 2.0.0 release.
yes it has my ok!
pavel
On 23.11.2010 22:53, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Now having Lua in TeX we should also embedded it in LyX and replace all
> Python scripts with Lua.
> Lua is the future! ;)
And we should do it immediately before the LyX 2.0.0 release.
> Peter
>
On 23.11.2010 22:53, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Now having Lua in TeX we should also embedded it in LyX and replace all
> Python scripts with Lua.
> Lua is the future! ;)
Enrico, shouldn't we replace all QProcess/multithreaded code
by Lua coroutines (co-operative multitasking)?
I'm sure, you are eage
Now having Lua in TeX we should also embedded it in LyX and replace all Python
scripts with Lua.
Lua is the future! ;)
Peter
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> I'll attache the (now complete) UI part so people can again raise their
> objections.
i didnt see FORMAT file...
pavel
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > I suggest to either 1) s/LaTeXFonts/TeXFonts/
> > or 2) s/tex_fonts/latex_fonts/
> > I prefer 1).
>
> Also, given the number of occurrences of the construct !nonlatexfonts,
> I would eliminate the "non" prefix and reverse the logic.
OK. Both points ta
Rob Oakes wrote:
> I am ecstatic to see support for LuaTeX and XeTeX added. I've used XeTeX
> for a while now and I'm just starting to use LuaTeX. However, it is really
> important that you allow the user choose which engine they wish to use.
Worry not. You are completely free to select either o
I am ecstatic to see support for LuaTeX and XeTeX added. I've used XeTeX
for a while now and I'm just starting to use LuaTeX. However, it is really
important that you allow the user choose which engine they wish to use.
While the goal is to make LuaTeX the end all and be-all of TeX typesetting,
i
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 05:26:48PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 05:10:56PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > ok, something of this kind can go in once you finish the discussion.
> >
> > I've put in the actual LuaTeX part since this seems unc
Richard Heck wrote:
> So can you tell me, just so I understand this, how we decide whether to
> use LuaTeX or XeTeX? Is that
> now part of the format in effect? Or what? I more or less understand
> what these processors are meant to do,
> but I'm pretty ignorant about them otherwise.
The same wa
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 05:10:56PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > ok, something of this kind can go in once you finish the discussion.
>
> I've put in the actual LuaTeX part since this seems uncontroversial. LuaTeX
> is
> now there as a "hidden feature".
>
> I'll atta
On 11/23/2010 11:10 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Pavel Sanda wrote:
ok, something of this kind can go in once you finish the discussion.
I've put in the actual LuaTeX part since this seems uncontroversial. LuaTeX is
now there as a "hidden feature".
So can you tell me, just so I understand thi
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> ok, something of this kind can go in once you finish the discussion.
I've put in the actual LuaTeX part since this seems uncontroversial. LuaTeX is
now there as a "hidden feature".
I'll attache the (now complete) UI part so people can again raise their
objections.
Jürgen
I
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 04:58:19PM +0100, Liviu Andronic wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > A google search gives ~8000 hits for "latex fonts" and ~10 hits
> > for "tex fonts". That's more that one order of magnitude difference...
> >
> Can't confirm this:
>
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> A google search gives ~8000 hits for "latex fonts" and ~10 hits
> for "tex fonts". That's more that one order of magnitude difference...
>
Can't confirm this:
'latex fonts': About 185,000 results (0.27 seconds)
'tex fonts': About 175,
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:02:36AM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 11/23/2010 09:02 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> >Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> >>But if you wish, I can change the label to
> >>"Use non-LaTeX fonts (via XeTeX/LuateX)"
> >yes, i would prefer this one.
> >
> Agreed. We want to help the newb
On 11/23/2010 09:02 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
But if you wish, I can change the label to
"Use non-LaTeX fonts (via XeTeX/LuateX)"
yes, i would prefer this one.
Agreed. We want to help the newbies, but not confuse the experts.
Richard
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> But if you wish, I can change the label to
> "Use non-LaTeX fonts (via XeTeX/LuateX)"
yes, i would prefer this one.
pavel
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> for the ui part i would let the keywords luatex/xetex somewhat visible
> eg by putting into parenthesis. there will be users who will seek for
> these strings.
My proposal would have been
"Use non-LaTeX fonts"
with the tooltip ("Use OpenType- and TrueType fonts directly (requ
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Richard Heck wrote:
> > Cheap indeed.
>
> After my recent cleanup, it looks even cheaper. See attached.
ok, something of this kind can go in once you finish the discussion.
for the ui part i would let the keywords luatex/xetex somewhat visible
eg by putting into paren
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> What about useNonLaTeXFonts? useNormalFonts? Use OpenTypeFonts?
>
> I still do not like System.
OK, I understand that. I'm fine with useNonLaTeXFonts. useOpenTypeFonts is not
really appropriate, since also TrueType can be used.
Jürgen
Le 23 nov. 2010 à 14:05, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit :
> Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>> my newest proposal is useSystemFonts. See below.
What about useNonLaTeXFonts? useNormalFonts? Use OpenTypeFonts?
I still do not like System.
JMarc
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> my newest proposal is useSystemFonts. See below.
The attached patch demonstrates this renaming (still partial, I didn't rename
the Qt widgets and the real buffer param yet). If you look at this, you'll see
that this buffer param is indeed only relevant where we do spe
Richard Heck wrote:
> Cheap indeed.
After my recent cleanup, it looks even cheaper. See attached.
Jürgen
Index: src/insets/InsetExternal.cpp
===
--- src/insets/InsetExternal.cpp (Revision 36445)
+++ src/insets/InsetExternal.cpp (Arbe
Guenter Milde wrote:
> * XeTeX can also use OpenType fonts that are not system-wide installed as
> well as "traditional" LaTeX fonts.
With "System Fonts", I do not mean "System-wide" fonts, but fonts avaliable to
the OS (as opposed to specialized LaTeX fonts)ö
Can XeTeX really use PSNFSS and M
Richard Heck wrote:
> I cant tell from the patch how we decide
> which one to use. Wasn't it determined
> before by the "Use XeTeX" box? Anyway, clearly I'm confused.
To answer this question more precisely: with my patch, you can chose between
"PDF (XeTeX)", "PDF (LuaTeX)" and "DVI (LuaTeX)" if
Richard Heck wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 10:55 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, I checked out what it would need us to implement basic
> > support for Lua(La)TeX (basic in the sense of what we had for XeTeX prior
> > to the polyglossia commit today*). And it's really as simple as the
On 2010-11-22, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 10:55 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, I checked out what it would need us to implement basic
>> support for Lua(La)TeX (basic in the sense of what we had for XeTeX prior to
>> the polyglossia commit today*). And it's really as si
On 2010-11-22, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> * why do we want it at all - or in more general, what are we aiming to
>> support? all pdftex, xetex, luatex?
> Yes.
Seconded.
...
> pdftex is very stable and reliable, and for people who do not need all
> the nifty new features,
On 11/22/2010 10:55 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Out of curiosity, I checked out what it would need us to implement basic
support for Lua(La)TeX (basic in the sense of what we had for XeTeX prior to
the polyglossia commit today*). And it's really as simple as the attached.
What I would do addit
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> i have rather general questions:
> * are there security considerations (havent worked with it, but
> its possible to write ERT for "rm -rf/" in lua)?
I don't think so. The LuaTeX developers are rather security-aware guys (after
all, these are the pdflatex/context people, a
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> features, and of course I respect if this is gonna be postponed. OTOH, people
> are just starting to use LuaTeX now for serious work, and I expect it to
> become more mature within the next months. So I just wanted to let you know
i have rather general questions:
* a
Out of curiosity, I checked out what it would need us to implement basic
support for Lua(La)TeX (basic in the sense of what we had for XeTeX prior to
the polyglossia commit today*). And it's really as simple as the attached.
What I would do additionally to the patch are just two cosmetic things:
59 matches
Mail list logo
