Received: from mx0.gmx.net (mx0.gmx.net [213.165.64.100]) by h1439878.stratoserver.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-2build1) with SMTP id o1GEbNEb020416 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:37:24 +0100 Received: (qmail 5180 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2010 14:37:18 -0000 Delivered-To: GMX delivery to rainer.schoepf@gmx.net Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2010 14:37:17 -0000 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (EHLO relay2.uni-heidelberg.de) [129.206.210.211] by mx0.gmx.net (mx002) with SMTP; 16 Feb 2010 15:37:17 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1GEZ0Wo028508 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:35:01 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o1FN14SJ013003; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:35:00 +0100 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 16.0) with spool id 384039 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:35:00 +0100 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o1GEZ0iX030285 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:35:00 +0100 Received: from shiva.jussieu.fr (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.129]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o1GEYmBe021815 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:34:52 +0100 Received: from math.jussieu.fr (mail.math.jussieu.fr [134.157.13.55]) by shiva.jussieu.fr (8.14.3/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id o1GEYl6q041344 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:34:48 +0100 (CET) X-Ids: 164 Received: from [192.168.0.124] (thue.elzevir.fr [88.165.216.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by math.jussieu.fr (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o1GEYknS054351 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:34:46 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090707) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4B727378.8060704@morningstar2.co.uk> <4B729944.5050308@residenset.net> <4B72B36E.6010401@morningstar2.co.uk> <4B730157.5060605@morningstar2.co.uk> <08431600-FDE2-4002-8A22-81CDD6AF300B@gmail.com> <4B76BEE6.50704@gmx.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 OpenPGP: id=50A89B42; url=http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB201857250A89B42 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.2/10395/Tue Feb 16 05:20:36 2010 on shiva.jussieu.fr X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Miltered: at jchkmail.jussieu.fr with ID 4B7AAD07.009 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4B7AAD07.009/134.157.13.55/mail.math.jussieu.fr/math.jussieu.fr/ Message-ID: <4B7AAD06.9030001@elzevir.fr> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:34:46 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFudWVsIFDDqWdvdXJpw6ktR29ubmFyZA==?= Subject: Re: LaTeX3 8-bit only? To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de In-Reply-To: <4B76BEE6.50704@gmx.de> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (Mail was not recognized as spam); Detail=5D7Q89H36p77e5KAPs1l6v/Sb97LojnDtMgfETrECMLUO9erHzOJe+OynZRhvlGqvET/J 3dm2vHWnQHIuidpgLhS+P7NNYz+zyHLMY9yCwGoTDtboDaDPUTmYi5shhPJySBzZnboYr4mQK+ZF NwOSQ==V1; X-Resent-By: Forwarder X-Resent-For: rainer.schoepf@gmx.net X-Resent-To: rainer@rainer-schoepf.de X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 85.214.41.38 Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 6286 Arno Trautmann a écrit : > It will not be used anymore if there is a more comfortable, maybe > faster, and at all ”better“ engine. LuaTeX seems to be this (not faster, > but the rest …) so I am using LuaTeX already for production of (small) > documents. It’s annoying however that I have to load packages to use it > (fontspec etc.) – it would be great to have this implemented in the > kernel which is only possible by fully setting on luaTeX. > I disagree on one point: fully setting on LuaTeX is not the only way. One could imagine an architecture like that: - the very core of the kernel using only features common to pdfTeX, XeTeX and LuaTeX (perhaps with some emulation, such as implementing pdfstrcmp in Lua). Mostly as it is now, I believe, but replacing e-TeX with the least common denominator of the 3 modern engine: I don't see the point in sticking to e-TeX). - then a more modular part of the kernel, according to the engine being used. Here, something like fontspec could be included. It would work in "restricted" mode with pdfTeX (maybe similar to LaTeX2e+inputenc+fontenc, except that I don't see any need to hack stuff for utf-8 input) and in "standard mode" with any of XeTeX and LuaTeX, and in "enhanced mode" with LuaTeX (eg additional microtypography à la pdfTeX). From the user point of view, no need to load any package, everything is in the kernel. Then if you say "latex3 --pdftex" you have a certain set of features available, but perhaps a better level of portability, and "latex3 --xetex" or "latex3 --luatex" gives you access to another features/portability tradeoff. Disclaimer: I'm not saying this is what should be done. As a matter of fact, I do not (yet ?) have a clear opinion about how latex3 should handle the engine question. I'm just saying this is an option that may be worth considering. (I also think that "native" (whatever it means) support for modern engines would be a big plus in the adoption of latex3 as a successor to the well-established latex2e.) >> In practical terms there will be some sort of latex3[.exe] program >> provided by TeX distributions to compile documents in LaTeX3 format. >> It might as well point to LuaTeX engine and no one will know any >> better. > I'd like to hear good arguments for not doing so. Is there any reason to think that LuaTeX will not be as good as XeTeX at some point? Any fear it doesn't become stable before LaTeX3 is? Manuel.