On 2015-11-22, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Am 20.11.2015 um 08:47 schrieb Guenter Milde:
Dear Uwe, >> * LuaTeX and TeX fonts: compiling error: >> The first message points to chemgreek.sty: >> . Defining command \selectchemgreekmapping with sig. 'm' on line 485. >> ................................................. >> ! Argument of \__str_case_end:nw has an extra }. >> <inserted text> >> \par >> l.573 \chemgreek_drop_symbols: > Same here. >> As mhchem loads chemgreek.sty, it is the (indirect) reason for the failing >> export test with LuaTeX. > What can we do? I know the author of mhchem and could report the problem. Good idea (although the problem is actually in chemgreek). >> Maybe we can describe mhchem in a separate document? After all it uses >> "mathed" but is not about Mathematics. > My intention was not to separate this. chemical equations are formulas > nevertheless. They are formulas, but not mathematical ones, so I would rather place this in "specific manuals > Chemical Formulas". > That mhchem nowadays load chemgreek is new. This explains why thge failure was catched as a "regression" by the export test suite. > However, I insist that our manuals are not designed to compile them with > every font you like. I agree with you: the primary object of the manuals is documenting LyX, of course. However, whenever this is not in the way of the primary goal, I would like to see the manuals also robust and clean * as good examples for LyX use, * as starting point for users trying to experiment with various LyX settings, * as a set of sample documents for the export tests although I know this is not all at once possible for every document and hence requires compromises. > They must be compilable out of the box on every LaTeX installation AND > the PDF output must look the same on every platform. Agreed. (However, the PDF looks slightly different depending on whether the lmodern fonts are installed or not: not only is EC pixly, but also the letter ß looks different in CM, CM-Super, EX vs. LM.) > If you like to use special fonts you can do this in your own documents. I don't want special fonts, but fonts that are available with every standard TeX installation in vector (type 1) format in the font encoding used in the docs. Currently, this is not the case. We get different fonts for PS vs. PDF (if LM is installed) and bitmap fonts for DVI, PS and PDF(dvipdfm) PDF(ps2pdf) as well as on sites without the optional Latin Modern fonts. > Custom fonts for the manuals would lead to another PDF output (different > page breaks, different number of characters per text line etc.) or make > the document even uncompilable. I know that CM-Super, EC and LM (the three fonts used depending on availability and export route) have the same metrics and hence page breaks etc are stable across this variation. This holds even for compiling with XeTeX/LuaTeX and the OpenType version of Latin Modern. However, the quality and size (in MB) of the output documents is not. This is why I prefer to use a font that is really available in any case and not substituted by some other or only loaded optionally. > The manuals are example how things work > and this is independent of the fonts you might like or not. I therefore > load the Latin Modern fonts if available because this way I can design > the output (so that you could print them out and form a booklet out of > them) But why don't you load Latin Modern for PS, DVI, PDF(ps2pdf), PDF(dvipdfm)? > and assure that all necessary characters are available. LyX 2.2 ensures that all necessary characters are available -- throwing an error, if not. This makes it easier to find a font that works. Thanks, Günter
