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! > > Argg, PLEASE STOP THAT RUBBISH!!!! 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 line. > 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. Regards, Roger -- .''`. 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