Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support XeTeX. #1637

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Support XeTeX. #1637

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

lichray
Copy link
Contributor

@lichray lichray commented May 26, 2017

graphicx and hyperref can detect pdf engines by themselves.
microtype font expansion doesn't work with xetex yet.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Jun 17, 2017

Why do we need to support XeTeX?

@lichray
Copy link
Contributor Author

lichray commented Jun 19, 2017

Just for convenience, for people who for some reason don't have pdfTeX installed. XeTeX won't be used to build the official PDF because of the lack of microtype support (for now).

In the future, if we want to print Unicode characters in the standard, switching to XeTeX make it easier.

@zygoloid
Copy link
Member

zygoloid commented Oct 9, 2017

Ideally, there should be only one canonical build process to get a PDF from our sources. If the standard editors do not consistently agree on one set of build tools, then the finer-grained editing work that we do (hyphenation hints and the like) will not be done with a consistent view of the resulting document.

If you would like to make a case for switching fully to XeTeX, that's something I would consider, but only if it either improves our resulting document or somehow improves our editorial workflow without regressing the resulting document. (I'm aware that XeTeX has less sophisticated microtypography support than pdfLaTeX right now, but I don't know if that makes a material impact on the beauty of the resulting document.)

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Oct 10, 2017

Even though I love XeTeX personally for its font handling, I've always found that that feature isn't useful when you need to do maths typesetting. We have complex typographic needs, and we need a maths font, maths symbol set, and a monotype font that all work together with the body font. When you go switching the body font on a whim, you end up with a much worse result where nothing matches. So XeTeX is great for traditional pure-prose book typesetting, but for technical material with complex typography I'm less convinced. If the motivation for XeTeX was to allow better font technologies, then such a proposal should come together with a harmonizing collection of fonts with a suitable license and a maths symbol set.

If the motivation for XeTeX is something else, please let me know. We could also reasonably consider some other typesetters like Context if it buys us something mission-critical, such as improved vertical control. But there would need to be a real benefit.

@lichray
Copy link
Contributor Author

lichray commented Oct 10, 2017

I merely found that it's convenient to generate a readable doc with less dependencies...
Feel free to close this.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Closed as agreed.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer closed this Oct 12, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants