[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Make Unicode bugs release critical?

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:46:29PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Fr, 11 Feb 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > XeTeX and XeLaTeX allow native UTF-8 input.  Should be made the
> > default, IMO, given how obsolete and broken the "standard" TeX
> > encodings are.  Being able to write in actual text rather than
> Please don't write rubbish if you don't know what you are talking about!!!

Um, no need to be rude.  Please keep your reply to technical points;
if I've said something incorrect, by all means correct me, but
insults is a step too far.  I haven't said anything that could justify
it, other than the fact that you disagree with my /opinion/.

> You have apparently no idea between input and font encoding.

I only mentioned UTF-8 with regard to input, so you are assuming
too much.

> LaTeX can easily useutf8 with the appropriate inputenc, as well
> as dozens of other encoding. Not all of the world is using UTF8.
> UTF( is still taileored to western roman script, thus very unpopular
> in Japan for example.

The inputenc hack only gets you so far.  I tried to go this way, and
ran into all sorts of issues with UTF-8 in macro definitions getting
scrambled and other sources of pain.  With XeLaTeX I had no such
troubles.  So IME inputenc was not a suitable solution for serious
UTF-8 work.

> > sorts out the awful font support, so you can use standard
> > freetype-registered fonts, again without the pain.  Result: a
> > document you can actually read in the editor!

What you are calling "rubbish" is not in any way false.  It's given
me the ability to have nice legible UTF-8-encoded documents, with
excellent font support.  There may be other ways.  There may be
better ways.  But it's not wrong.

[snip rant]

> > IMO all those broken terminal emulators, editors and tools should
> > be put in the bin.  There are plenty of non-broken replacements, so
> > why keep them around to bitrot even further?  It's not like it's
> So what is the replacement for tex?
> Yeah iknow, it is *luatex* but we are FAAAAAR fro being stable and
> usable.

Well I thought the jury was still out on which was the better solution.
I really couldn't care less which "wins"; I'm using the solution which
works right now, and I'll happily adopt whatever is better down the

> XeTeX is nice for certain things, but not for all. Have you tried to
> set Tibetan text with XeTeX? The last time I tried it was a mess.
> And with Khmer (the language and script of Cambodia) it is even worse.
> Only because you are only using ASCII characters please don't make the
> rest of the world laugh on you.

You are again making unwarranted assumptions.  I might not be using it
for difficult-to-set languages, but I'm certainly not using ASCII
characters only, or I wouldn't be needing UTF-8 input.  


  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: