Hi Tobias,
Polyglossia works fine for german! I believed you missed a error message.
You have to change one line, you need:
\defaultfontfeatures{Ligatures=TeX}
regards
Keith.
Am 28.10.2011 um 16:53 schrieb Tobias Schoel:
> As a simple user (very simple: none of my work gets published,
Ulrike Fischer wrote:
LaTeX monolithic? In general people complain that they have to load
packages for everything ;-). Context is monolithic, but in LaTeX you
only have to use a rather small kernel.
It may be "a small kernel" in relation to the size of the
total available packages, but it is
> > So a font loader should be written as a sort of library with clear API
> > which can be used by every format.
>
> Amen. And if other add-ons could follow suit, what an
> enormous benefit that might bring. Although, as regular
> readers of the list will know, I do have philosophical
> prob
[TeX Live list dropped, TeXhax added]
Ulrike Fischer wrote:
> So a font loader should be written as a sort of library with clear API
> which can be used by every format.
Amen. And if other add-ons could follow suit, what an
enormous benefit that might bring. Although, as regular
readers of th
On Oct 30, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
>
>
> Khaled Hosny wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 05:18:18PM +0100, Petr Tomasek wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, I think little people need more then than what XeTTeX acctually
>>> provides...
>>
>> "640kb ought to be enough for
Khaled Hosny wrote:
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 05:18:18PM +0100, Petr Tomasek wrote:
Actually, I think little people need more then than what XeTTeX acctually
provides...
"640kb ought to be enough for anybody."
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 05:18:18PM +0100, Petr Tomasek wrote:
>
> Actually, I think little people need more then than what XeTTeX acctually
> provides...
"640kb ought to be enough for anybody."
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc
Le 30/10/2011 17:20, Petr Tomasek a écrit :
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 04:29:18PM +0100, Paul Isambert wrote:
Le 30/10/2011 13:20, George N. White III a écrit :
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Khaled Hosny
wrote:
Writing an OpenType layout engine is not a simple task, and you can
judge from the
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 03:29:30AM +1100, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
> Are you talking about TeX--XeT bidirectional typesetting algorithm?
Sorry that was a typo, am using a slow connection and a mutt on a server
over ssh...
> No, It has several major bugs and it is not perfect for RTL typesetting (ok
>
Are you talking about TeX--XeT bidirectional typesetting algorithm?
No, It has several major bugs and it is not perfect for RTL typesetting (ok
but not perfect).
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Petr Tomasek wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 09:20:19AM -0300, George N. White III wrote:
> > On Su
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 09:20:19AM -0300, George N. White III wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Khaled Hosny wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 04:25:21PM +1100, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
> >> XeTeX font support is heaps better and stable than what luaotfload package
> >> offers and I guess
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 04:29:18PM +0100, Paul Isambert wrote:
> Le 30/10/2011 13:20, George N. White III a écrit :
> > On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Khaled Hosny
> wrote:
> >> Writing an OpenType layout engine is not a simple task, and you can
> >> judge from the many years it toke FOSS commu
Le 30/10/2011 13:20, George N. White III a écrit :
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Khaled Hosny
wrote:
> Writing an OpenType layout engine is not a simple task, and you can
> judge from the many years it toke FOSS community to have a really good
> one, HarfBuzz (the name luaotfload is mislea
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 04:25:21PM +1100, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
>> XeTeX font support is heaps better and stable than what luaotfload package
>> offers and I guess that is why many users still like using xetex instead
>> luatex. I personally
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 04:25:21PM +1100, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
> XeTeX font support is heaps better and stable than what luaotfload package
> offers and I guess that is why many users still like using xetex instead
> luatex. I personally believe that it is a bad practice that luaotfload just
> co
The
> problem is, it's easier to blame luaotfload for its uncertain status
> than to sit down and write a replacement; so please let's not forget
> that without luaotfload LuaTeX wouldn't be different from PDFTeX as far
> as fonts are concerned.
>
>
That was not what I was trying to convey. What
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Paul Isambert wrote:
> Le 30/10/2011 06:25, Vafa Khalighi a écrit :
>
> > XeTeX font support is heaps better and stable than what luaotfload
> > package offers and I guess that is why many users still like using
> > xetex instead luatex. I personally believe that
Le 30/10/2011 06:25, Vafa Khalighi a écrit :
XeTeX font support is heaps better and stable than what luaotfload
package offers and I guess that is why many users still like using
xetex instead luatex. I personally believe that it is a bad practice
that luaotfload just copies ConTeXt code, it
XeTeX font support is heaps better and stable than what luaotfload
package offers and I guess that is why many users still like using xetex
instead luatex. I personally believe that it is a bad practice that
luaotfload just copies ConTeXt code, it should not be deeply dependent on
ConTeXt because
On Fr, 28 Okt 2011, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> I cannot test other Indic scripts because I do not know them. Tibetan
> script may be difficult.
Tibetan is much simpler than Devanagari scripts. It has a certain amount
of fixed ligatures, plus a fw rules if one wants to make non-standard
ligatures (prac
Zdenek Wagner wrote:
If I understand Mojca correctly, she compared XeTeX to Omega.
If that were the case, Zdenek, would Mojca not have written
"XeTeX is exactly the contrary. It simplifies everything
in comparison to Omega.", rather than "XeTeX is exactly
the contrary. It simplifies everythi
2011/10/28 Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) :
>
>
> Zdenek Wagner wrote :
>
>> 2011/10/28 Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) :
>
>>> Mojca Miklavec wrote :
>
Omega was remove because it was buggy, unmaintained, but most
important of all: hardly usable. It took a genius to figure out how to
Zdenek Wagner wrote :
2011/10/28 Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) :
Mojca Miklavec wrote :
Omega was remove because it was buggy, unmaintained, but most
important of all: hardly usable. It took a genius to figure out how to
use it, while XeTeX is exactly the contrary. It simplifies every
2011/10/28 Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) :
>
>
> Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 13:19, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>> Since Jonathan has no time any more for coding XeTeX, then what will be
>>> the
>>> state of XeTeX in TeX distributions such as TeXLive? will be XeTeX
>
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 02:03:52PM +0200, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 01:58:18PM +0200, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> > If nothing else, if nobody adapts the code, it might stop working with
> > next version of Mac OS X or a version after that.
>
> I assume this is related to native Ma
On 28 Oct 2011, at 21:20, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
>>
>> Omega was remove because it was buggy, unmaintained, but most
>> important of all: hardly usable. It took a genius to figure out how to
>> use it, while XeTeX is exactly the contrary. It simplifies everything
>> in comparison
Mojca Miklavec wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 13:19, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
Hi
Since Jonathan has no time any more for coding XeTeX, then what will be the
state of XeTeX in TeX distributions such as TeXLive? will be XeTeX removed
from TeXLive just like Aleph and Omega (in favour of LuaTeX) were
2011/10/28 Khaled Hosny :
> I think it would not be hard to convince Hans to write the code once he
> is given a clear specification (but that would require familiarity with
> OpenType and how it handles Indic shaping as well) and someone who can
> do the testing.
>
The rules are coded in ICU and P
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 07:37:00PM +0200, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> 2011/10/28 Khaled Hosny :
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 05:57:20PM +0200, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> > I don't know much about Indic scripts, all I know is that we have no
> > special code for Indic shaping, so if things work then it works
2011/10/28 Khaled Hosny :
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 05:57:20PM +0200, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> I don't know much about Indic scripts, all I know is that we have no
> special code for Indic shaping, so if things work then it works because
> it relies on generic OpenType features that require no specia
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 05:57:20PM +0200, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> 2011/10/28 Khaled Hosny :
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 02:50:53PM +0200, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> >> Generally, all XeTeX documents must render in luatex without the need
> >> of modifying the source. I see that things are changing. Simp
2011/10/28 Khaled Hosny :
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 02:50:53PM +0200, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
>> Generally, all XeTeX documents must render in luatex without the need
>> of modifying the source. I see that things are changing. Simple नमस्ते
>> दुनिया fails in luatex from TL 2010 but works in TL 2011.
As a simple user (very simple: none of my work gets published, I just
use TeX for myself): What do I have to think about, when moving from
XeLaTeX to LuaLaTeX?
I took a random document I created last week and tried to compile it
with lualatex instead of xelatex. It threw an error because of
p
Am 28.10.2011 um 13:58 schrieb Mojca Miklavec:
> If nothing else, if nobody adapts
> the code, it might stop working with next version of Mac OS X or a
> version after that.
Mac OS X is not the world. Classic Mac OS was the basis for the first XeTeX
development. When Apple decides to change its
Vafa Khalighi wrote:
> As an example, the attached PDF is just a portion of a maths textbook with
> the title "Theory of Ordinary Differential Equation and Dynamic Systems"
> which has been typeset using XePersian and it is published just today
> in Iran.
> [1]http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdeta
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 02:50:53PM +0200, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> Generally, all XeTeX documents must render in luatex without the need
> of modifying the source. I see that things are changing. Simple नमस्ते
> दुनिया fails in luatex from TL 2010 but works in TL 2011. We cannot
> switch from XeTeX t
On Oct 28, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Kirk Lowery wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Zdenek Wagner
> wrote:
>
> Generally, all XeTeX documents must render in luatex without the need
> of modifying the source. I see that things are changing. Simple नमस्ते
> दुनिया fails in luatex from TL 2010 but
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
>
> Generally, all XeTeX documents must render in luatex without the need
> of modifying the source. I see that things are changing. Simple नमस्ते
> दुनिया fails in luatex from TL 2010 but works in TL 2011. We cannot
> switch from XeTeX to luat
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 01:58:18PM +0200, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> If nothing else, if nobody adapts the code, it might stop working with
> next version of Mac OS X or a version after that.
I assume this is related to native Mac font APIs, right? But then I
think the worst case with to disable that
Personally, I would not mind if XeTeX went into maintenance mode. I like
such stability. It already has a great deal of functionality, probably
enough to last me the rest of my writing career. I do take Vafa's point,
though, that if future OS platforms break XeTeX, it would be nice to have
someo
My question in the first place had nothing to do with the development of
XeTeX. In fact it is a long time that there has been no development for
XeTeX and I have no problem with that. What scares me is that XeTeX may be
unusable in say several years.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Vafa Khaligh
2011/10/28 George N. White III :
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Mojca Miklavec
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 13:19, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> Since Jonathan has no time any more for coding XeTeX, then what will be the
>>> state of XeTeX in TeX distributions such as TeXLive? will
That is not entirely true. Should the users of TeX (those who use Knuth's
original TeX engine) support the development of Knuth TeX or move to another
engine just because Knuth no longer extends TeX and he only fixes bugs?
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:33 PM, George N. White III wrote:
> On Fri, Oct
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Mojca Miklavec
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 13:19, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
>> Hi
>> Since Jonathan has no time any more for coding XeTeX, then what will be the
>> state of XeTeX in TeX distributions such as TeXLive? will be XeTeX removed
>> from TeXLive just like
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 13:19, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
> Hi
> Since Jonathan has no time any more for coding XeTeX, then what will be the
> state of XeTeX in TeX distributions such as TeXLive? will be XeTeX removed
> from TeXLive just like Aleph and Omega (in favour of LuaTeX) were removed
> from TeXL
2011/10/28 Vafa Khalighi :
> Hi
> Since Jonathan has no time any more for coding XeTeX, then what will be the
> state of XeTeX in TeX distributions such as TeXLive? will be XeTeX removed
> from TeXLive just like Aleph and Omega (in favour of LuaTeX) were removed
> from TeXLive?
> Currently we have
46 matches
Mail list logo
