User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15)
            Gecko/20110304 Lanikai/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4D738DB1.3020807@gmx.de> <4D738FA8.8050509@morningstar2.co.uk>    
            <4D739437.4040802@gmx.de> <4D73A4B8.5060108@morningstar2.co.uk>    
            <4D73C1FC.4050907@gmx.de> <4D73CD52.4090800@yahoo.de>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig354CDBA805FD2F21DBF5DADF"
Message-ID:  <4D73D6AA.9080806@gmx.de>
Date:         Sun, 6 Mar 2011 19:47:06 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de>
From: Arno Trautmann <Arno.Trautmann@GMX.DE>
Subject: Re: format?
To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de
In-Reply-To:  <4D73CD52.4090800@yahoo.de>
Precedence: list
Status: R

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig354CDBA805FD2F21DBF5DADF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Philipp Stephani wrote:
> Am 06.03.2011 18:18, schrieb Arno Trautmann:
>>
>> I find this horrible. It would be easy if the standard engine would be=

>> luaTeX with pdf output and other machines could be used as pdflatex3 o=
r
>> similar.
>=20
> I agree that LuaTeX with PDF output is the most (only?) sensible choice=
,
> but if the L3 team chooses to support legacy engines and output formats=
,
> I have no objection to the proposed syntax with command line switches.

I.e. latex3 as default for luatex + pdf + latex3 and everything else
with switches? That would be fine for me, too.

> The main latex3 program will probably have to be a Lua wrapper script
> anyway because of the things the engines won't do: re-running the engin=
e
> when needed, formatting error messages, computing the correct command
> line arguments for the engine.

Sounds sensible.

>>> an so forth (with --xetex ignoring --dvi for the obvious reasons).  D=
oes
>>> a similar scheme make sense for a hypothetical 'latex2x'? (I'm going
>>> with 'x' for 'extended', and also for 'like LaTeX2e, but clearly a bi=
t
>>> further along. Of course, there would need to be some defaults for th=
e
>>> above - I guess I'd favour pdfTeX in PDF mode at present.
>>
>> For l2x (I like the name!), I'd stick with the names as they are.
>=20
> I don't know. I'd like to see latex2x using LuaTeX as default engine,
> too. Since today LuaTeX already supports everything that pdfTeX and
> XeTeX has (and much more), I see no point in using the old engines any
> more if there is no need for backward compatibility. The only point for=

> pdfTeX is that LuaTeX is still beta, but since L2e will stay, I don't
> see many problems here; LuaTeX is stable enough, and the l2x manual can=

> contain an appropriate warning.

Stability cannot be a point here as l2x will never be considered a
stable format. (At least I hope so, in contrary to l2=CE=B5)
Before starting, it should be clear who would be the users/testers of
l2x =E2=80=93 is a manual needed? l2x does not do anything more than 2=CE=
=B5 + expl3
does and both are well documented =E2=80=A6

>>> Second question: anything else that should be included that is not in=

>>> the combined 'release' material (expl3, xparse, xtemplate, xcoffins)?=

>>> These do load various bits and pieces (for example, graphicx), but I'=
d
>>> like to at least add fixltx2e to the above.
>>
>> As Philipp suggested, fontspec for luaTeX and XeTeX engines. Maybe eve=
n
>> xltxtra for XeTeX and some lua packages for luaTeX? But that is no
>> LaTeX3 stuff anymore =E2=80=A6
>=20
> expl3 already loads the luatex package. Maybe Heiko should be made a
> honorary member of the L3 team, then the L2x format could include the
> whole oberdiek bundle...

If they are useful and often used? In the end, it should be rewritten
and added to the kernel, no?

> fontspec is written by Will who is a member of the L3 team, so that
> would be no problem. It would essentially be NFSSv3 for LuaTeX.
> xltxtra replaces kernel macros such as \textsuperscript, I think that i=
s
> not something we want by default.

Yes, right.
One question here: Having fontspec loaded in the format, what happens if
a package \Requires fontspec? Is it loaded again? Or can loading then be
prevented?

> fontspec loads luaotfload which depends on luatexbase. Currently there
> are some conflicts between luatex and luatexbase that should be fixed.
> Other packages by MPG would be nice, too, e.g. luacode.

Indeed!

> If we think even further, the L3 team might choose to lift several
> popular and high-quality packages to semi-official status by including
> them in the format, e.g. Philipp Lehman's packages, mathtools, the
> oberdiek bundle, xcolor, TikZ, siunitx...

I was thinking about this, but that would go too far. At least for a
short-term test version, that would be too much packages.
For long-term considerations, they would be nice to have in the format =E2=
=80=93
but this would blow up the size strongly, wouldn't it? We could imagine
a "plain LaTeX" format without them and a "bloated LaTeX" including =E2=80=
=A6 ;)

> Fixltx2e has already been mentioned and would probably the first
> candidate for inclusion in the format.

Yes.

Cheers
Arno


--------------enig354CDBA805FD2F21DBF5DADF
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk1z1q0ACgkQcYXUw/rerZ5JKQCfSL/Wv4j20YRntxgxZxvJO1dI
p8cAoNx6xPV44CuXg56cEA/zaIaUTqzk
=ozeB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig354CDBA805FD2F21DBF5DADF--