On 2015-11-22, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 20.11.2015 um 01:36 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
>> For both TeX fonts and system fonts? For me they only compile with TeX
>> fonts.
> Here too. But why do you insist to compile with non-TeX fonts?
Because we want to test compilation with non-TeX fonts and documents that
ship with LyX are a good ressource for a test sample.
>From your point of view, this may look like an "abuse" of the
documentation.
I agree that it is a "mixed blessing":
* automated export test give early notice, if the documentation does not
compile after a change in the development version of LyX.
This may point to a problem with the commit or to a hithero hidden
problem in the documentation - in both cases this is a good thing.
* In order to test more than just pdflatex export, the documents are
exported to formats they were not designed for and (by default) with both,
TeX fonts and non-TeX fonts.
Failure of these "secondary" tests may either point to a problem in LyX,
to a problem in the docs, or be due to an incompatibility like the one
below.
Making the documentation "Unicode font secure" is additonal work, but may
also be an investment into the future where more and more people expect
this as the "normal" export route for LateX documents.
For now, the idea is to
* make simple changes that do not stand in the way directly in the
documentation files, and
* flag documents that don't compile with non-TeX fonts (or other
modifications or non-default export routes).
Most of the noise about export tests in the last weeks was about this
categorization.
> I can understand the package author that he predefines a font for the
> statement text since it depends on the font if characters can be
> displayed or not. I mean, imagine you are a Bulgarian and thus write in
> Cyrillic. Since Bulgaria is in the EU you need the EU-wide H-P
> statements. What will happen if you use a system font designed for
> Cyrillic that might e.g. miss the long hyphen used in the statement
> texts?
Export will fail, as LyX now reports missing characters as an error.
> My point is that we should not try to test for features that are not
> available with the packages used in the documents. It is in my opinion
> not a mistake that packages like mhchem require certain fonts to assure
> that you will get a proper and correct output. (hp-statement is part of
> mhchem and for chemical stuff you need special characters that are not
> availably in every system font)
Agreed. However, many of our manuals do compile fine to several output
formats and provide a good basis to test these export routes. It would be
a big help, if we can cooperate in this "dual use".
Günter
