On 2015-11-01, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Sonntag, 1. November 2015 um 19:37:41, schrieb Guenter Milde > <mi...@users.sf.net> >> On 2015-10-30, Kornel Benko wrote:
... >> > Besides we have ATM about 200 failing export test cases. ... >> How many of these are for the obscure combination of Xetex and Tex fonts? >> While there is a use case for LuaTeX and TeX fonts, I can't see a reason to >> use Xetex instead of pdflatex with TeX fonts! > 316 tests are XeTex + system font, 52 (not inverted) of them fail, 42 inverted > 316 tests are XeTex + tex font, 12 (not inverted) of them fail, 54 inverted >> Solving all issues that arise from this combination is diverting attention >> and ressources from more important tasks. > Most of these tests were working some time ago. Many of them "by chance": not failing but with incorrect output (Missing characters, wrong characters) or "fragile" (working, but would fail by addition of one non-ASCII character, say). > We already have many inverted test. This also adds to the impression, that this is an area where test failures are to be expected for many reasons. I.e. the signal to noise ratio is rather bad for XeTeX+TeX fonts and we would be better of without these tests. > I am strongly against such policy. First one has to check if the reason is > really > babel/polyglossia conflict. There are many more reasons, mhchem, babel language files, font problems, ... The combination XeTeX + TeX-fonts is not supported by many packages, including standard LaTeX packages like "inputenc"! OTOH, it is so obscure that it is really not worth wasting much time to work around all the problems. Rather treat/document it as: avoid if possible, use at your own risk. Günter
