On 2 January 2016 at 19:24, Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote: > >>> I've made attached quick hack patch for texinfo.tex. The >>> following command [to compile the lilypond documentation] does >>> not occur `Undefined control sequence.' with the patch. >> >> Thanks for working on this. This patch uses native LuaTeX support >> for Unicode. If we wanted to support this in texinfo.tex, it should >> probably be optional. > > Rather not.
Why not? What about the reasons Karl mentioned for defaulting to bytewise input (assuming we find some way to get that in LuaTeX)? >> Maybe whether a "@documentencoding UTF-8" line is given should affect >> whether native Unicode is used by default. > > This is the way to go IMHO. What I was thinking was to use native Unicode support if @documentencoding UTF-8 was not given, so you can "\input texinfo" and then type away, so that a lengthy preamble wasn't needed to take advantage of LuaTeX's character support. The problem would come when a file was shared with someone who wasn't using LuaTeX: then @documentencoding UTF-8 would need to be added, switching to texinfo.tex's own support for Unicode, which would also confirm that the characters used in the document all had glyphs. >> Are these changes likely to work for most LuaTeX installations, e.g. >> will luaotfload.sty exist for everyone? > > I think so, yes. `luaotfload.sty' is an essential part of the luatex > infrastructure. OK good.
