2016-03-25 12:38 GMT+01:00 Javier Bezos :
> El 25/03/2016 10:40, Zdenek Wagner escribió:
>
> The old IL2 encoding was creased for the CS fonts and supported in
>> cslatex. [...] Thus the result is that
>> the only encoding for Czech and Slovak that has ever been
El 25/03/2016 10:40, Zdenek Wagner escribió:
The old IL2 encoding was creased for the CS fonts and supported in
cslatex. [...] Thus the result is that
the only encoding for Czech and Slovak that has ever been officially
supported in babel is T1. It makes no sense to introduce IL2 (and XL2
that
2016-03-25 10:39 GMT+01:00 Apostolos Syropoulos :
>
>
> >
> >Why to stop it? I just feel easier to have one common source for
> everything than maintaining a separate source for 8-bit
> >babel, for babel for XeTeX, for babel for luatex etc.
> >
>
> Currently, there are more
Hi Ross and Javier,
there are two aspects. If I take an example of Czech and Slovak, many years
ago DC fonts and EC fonts were not suitable for Czech/Slovak typography,
therefore CS fonts with a different encoding were created. Now LM fonts as
well as TeX Gyre contain everything we need and are
>
>IMO the reason for such activity is to have one common declaration for all
>engines so that everything
>is defined at one place and 8-bit babel as well as that for XeTeX is generated
>from the same source.
>
OK then let's stop compiling and distributing TeX, dvips, etc.! The approach:
one
Hi all,
IMO the reason for such activity is to have one common declaration for all
engines so that everything is defined at one place and 8-bit babel as well
as that for XeTeX is generated from the same source.
Zdeněk Wagner
http://ttsm.icpf.cas.cz/team/wagner.shtml
http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz
Hi Javier,
On Mar 24, 2016, at 5:59 PM, Javier Bezos
> wrote:
Apostolos,
preface = \textPi \textrho\acctonos \textomicron\textlambda
\textomicron\textgamma
XeLaTeX is Unicode aware and can handle Unicode strings. Therefore, I fail to
see
why you
Apostolos,
preface = \textPi \textrho\acctonos \textomicron\textlambda
\textomicron\textgamma
XeLaTeX is Unicode aware and can handle Unicode strings. Therefore, I fail to
see
why you are doing things this way. The LGR font encoding is an ancient hack that
has no usage anymore.
Of course,
Mojca,
Thank you. See me reply to Zdeněk.
What is the difference between months.format.wide and
months.stand-alone.wide?
In most languages, none. This distinction is made by the CLDR,
but I wonder if it's useful here, so very likely the format
branch should be removed.
In Slovenian one
On 23 March 2016 at 19:31, Javier Bezos wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm working on a new version of babel, with a new way to define
> languages in a descriptive way, more than in a programmatic one (of
> course, the latter won't be excluded because it's still necessary).
>
>
Apostolos,
> preface = \textPi \textrho\acctonos \textomicron\textlambda
\textomicron\textgamma
>
> XeLaTeX is Unicode aware and can handle Unicode strings. Therefore, I
fail to see
> why you are doing things this way. The LGR font encoding is an ancient
hack that
> has no usage anymore.
Zdeněk,
Thank you very much. Very useful, and you confirm my suspect
the data in the CLDR is not always reliable. Furthermore, it's
obvious it's intended mainly for displaying plain text in
some especific contexts and not for fine typesetting. At first
my idea was to sinchronize more or less
Only ञ is a part of ज्ञ but it seems to me that the index filed lists
characters that may be used as a heading in the index. Thus ञ should not be
listed.
Zdeněk Wagner
http://ttsm.icpf.cas.cz/team/wagner.shtml
http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz
2016-03-23 23:29 GMT+01:00 BPJ :
> >
> characters] ङ and ञ are not used in Hindi, they should be removed from
index
Aren't they used in conjuncts either?
/bpj
onsdag 23 mars 2016 skrev Zdenek Wagner :
> Hi Javier,
>
> I am copying my reply to the cstex list because I am not autoritative for
> Slovak and
Hi Javier,
I am copying my reply to the cstex list because I am not autoritative for
Slovak and maybe I will not be precise enough. I am giving my commnents to
Czech (cs.ini), Slovak (sk.ini), and Hindi (hi.ini). Some comments are
common for all.
I do not understand the meaning of the encoding
2012/9/4 Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com
That's bad news! I thought that François Charette implemented French
in Polyglossia well. What is missing? Maybe it could be implemented
fast. And are there good OpenType fonts for French? I know that French
uses tiny spaces preceding double
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:11 PM, François Charette firmicu...@gmail.com wrote:
While I am on this list let me ask you a related question. When Arthur took
up maintenance of polyglossia last year his main goal was to support
LuaLaTeX as well as XeLaTeX. Any news about this?
About a month ago
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Joel C. Salomon joelcsalo...@gmail.com wrote:
http://gitub.com/reutenauer/polyglossia.
…and of course I copied his typo. That should be
http://github.com/reutenauer/polyglossia, of course.
—Joel
--
Hi,
Zdenek, again I've come in to the middle of a conversation...
It's not clear to me how to implement the rules, or who is responsible
for implementing them (or quite what the rules ought to be).
Yes it is possible to implement, for instance, a french-specific
kerning in an OpenType font,
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:34:19PM -0400, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
About a month ago Arthur Reutenauer posted to this list (and some
others) that experimental support for LuaTeX had been added in the
development version he maintains at
http://github.com/reutenauer/polyglossia.
The support
Hi,
[snip]
Two possible smartfont techniques for such locale feature are:
- alternate french punctuation marks with larger sidebearings: this is
very unflexible for users (punctuation characters without additional
space or with different space width are troublesome) but of course
simplifies
2012/9/6 Tobias Schoel liesdieda...@googlemail.com:
Hi,
[snip]
Two possible smartfont techniques for such locale feature are:
- alternate french punctuation marks with larger sidebearings: this is
very unflexible for users (punctuation characters without additional
space or with different
2012/9/6 Georg Duffner g.duff...@gmail.com:
Hi,
Am 2012-09-06 16:36, schrieb Zdenek Wagner:
2012/9/6 Tobias Schoel liesdieda...@googlemail.com:
It's simply checking for a flag that says I want French Spacing and
then
including white space (in whatever form) at appropriate places. You can
Am 2012-09-04 13:23, schrieb Zdenek Wagner:
2012/9/4 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk:
Zdenek Wagner wrote:
Language feature of a font.
OK, now understood, but this does not address my concern
regarding the countless extant fonts that do not have
such a feature. Would it not be better
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 03/09/2012 20:16, Zdenek Wagner a écrit :
2012/9/3 Javier Bezos lis...@tex-tipografia.com:
François,
Some times ago, I read that babel will be compatible with xelatex.
I would like to use babel with french and sanskrit languages, do I have
2012/9/5 François Patte francois.pa...@mi.parisdescartes.fr:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 03/09/2012 20:16, Zdenek Wagner a écrit :
2012/9/3 Javier Bezos lis...@tex-tipografia.com:
François,
Some times ago, I read that babel will be compatible with xelatex.
I would
Fontspec manual, para 10.13:
In rare situations users may want to mechanically distort the shapes of the
glyphs in
the current font such as shown in Example 37. Please don’t overuse these
features;
they are not a good alternative to having the real shapes.
If values are omitted, their defaults
Am Mon, 3 Sep 2012 20:16:22 +0200 schrieb Zdenek Wagner:
Some times ago, I read that babel will be compatible with xelatex.
I would like to use babel with french and sanskrit languages, do I have
any chance to succeed?
Maintainig babel is important for (pdf)latex which is still in use but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 03/09/2012 20:16, Zdenek Wagner a écrit :
2012/9/3 Javier Bezos lis...@tex-tipografia.com:
François,
Some times ago, I read that babel will be compatible with
xelatex.
I would like to use babel with french and sanskrit languages, do
I
2012/9/4 François Patte francois.pa...@mi.parisdescartes.fr:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 03/09/2012 20:16, Zdenek Wagner a écrit :
2012/9/3 Javier Bezos lis...@tex-tipografia.com:
François,
Some times ago, I read that babel will be compatible with
xelatex.
I would
2012/9/4 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk:
Zdenek Wagner wrote:
I know that French uses tiny spaces preceding double punctuation.
IMHO it should be a property of a font, not of a typesetting system.
Presumably you mean a user-selectable property rather than a static
property (one would
Am Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:45:53 +0200 schrieb Zdenek Wagner:
Here luatex has an advantage that
such features can be injected via lua without changing the font (if
you know how to do it). I prefer this way because active characters
may break some macros, eg a macro may expect an argument
2012/9/4 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk:
I am confused, Zdeněk :
Zdenek Wagner wrote:
Not the font, only the language.
but in your earlier message you wrote IMHO it should be a property of a
font, not of a typesetting system.
So I am not at all clear what you are advocating : are
Zdenek Wagner wrote:
Language feature of a font.
OK, now understood, but this does not address my concern
regarding the countless extant fonts that do not have
such a feature. Would it not be better to postulate
a solution that can be used with any extant font ?
** Phil.
2012/9/4 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk:
Zdenek Wagner wrote:
Language feature of a font.
OK, now understood, but this does not address my concern
regarding the countless extant fonts that do not have
such a feature. Would it not be better to postulate
a solution that can be used
2012/9/4 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk:
Zdenek Wagner wrote:
If the system offered inserting features dynamically without requiring
users to understand font internals, it would be even better.
Hear hear. As one who sits only on the edge of typography and
?fontography?, I find the
Zdenek Wagner wrote:
If the system offered inserting features dynamically without requiring
users to understand font internals, it would be even better.
Hear hear. As one who sits only on the edge of typography and
?fontography?, I find the present XeTeX interface almost unusable,
Maintainig babel is important for (pdf)latex which is still in use but
for XeLaTeX I would suggest polyglossia which already works.
I would add the new version of babel won't make things to
work automagically. Rather it will provide some tools to
ease making language files compatible with
François,
Some times ago, I read that babel will be compatible with xelatex.
I would like to use babel with french and sanskrit languages, do I have
any chance to succeed?
Not yet -- I'm still working on it. For further info, see:
http://www.tex-tipografia.com/babel_news.html
An advance of
2012/9/3 Javier Bezos lis...@tex-tipografia.com:
François,
Some times ago, I read that babel will be compatible with xelatex.
I would like to use babel with french and sanskrit languages, do I have
any chance to succeed?
Maintainig babel is important for (pdf)latex which is still in use
Hi Kiddies,
I am getting a good laugh with this thread!
Yes, there are caveats to the arguments.
The important thing is that there is someone/ a team that is willing
to improve the behavior of Babel and maybe teaching it some new tricks
while not breaking it! The benefits may only be for a few
Is there a mailing list/development repository for babel?
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Do you want to say that Leslie Lamport lied when stating that LaTeX
(even v. 2.09) is international? Do you want to say that the babel
Many years ago a friend of mine prepared his MSc thesis using
nroff and the text he was setting was Greek. Does this mean
that people should maintain nroff?
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:33:48AM -0700, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote:
Try to write Greek with babel and with XeTeX: babal is just pain in
@$$ whilst XeLaTeX simply rocks! Do you understand now what I am
saying?
You are comparing apples and oranges here.
Try to write Greek with babel and with XeTeX: babal is just pain in
@$$ whilst XeLaTeX simply rocks! Do you understand now what I am
saying?
You are comparing apples and oranges here.
You think so? OK, I can live with this kind
of critique.
A.S.
--
Apostolos
2012/5/4 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com:
German, Italian, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian, Classical Greek, Modern
Greek, French, Plattdeutsh, Bahasa Indonesia, Vietnamese, Mongolian,
Try to write Greek with babel and with XeTeX: babal is just pain in
@$$ whilst XeLaTeX simply rocks!
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 03:19:16AM -0700, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote:
Try to write Greek with babel and with XeTeX: babal is just pain in
@$$ whilst XeLaTeX simply rocks! Do you understand now what I am
saying?
You are comparing apples and oranges here.
You think so? OK, I can
Well, when you compare a LaTeX package to a TeX engine you either don’t
know what you are talking about or deliberately committing a logical
fallacy, pick your choice.
Do you think I don't know the difference between a typesetting engine
and a package? When I talk about babel I mean
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 06:33:03AM -0700, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote:
Well, when you compare a LaTeX package to a TeX engine you either don’t
know what you are talking about or deliberately committing a logical
fallacy, pick your choice.
Do you think I don't know the difference
If you think LaTeX is too archaic and should be put in museum (I do),
that is a different story.
At least we agree to something! In addition, I feel that we need to get
rid of many other programs, macro-packages, etc. For example, there is
absolutely no reason to maintain XDVI.
A.S.
Although I don't use babel nowadays, I would like to thank to Javier Bezos
his effort and time in maintaining and improving it.
That's one of the best things of the *TeX world, that you have options to
choose what it is better for you. Perhaps XeTeX is great for some of us
today; perhaps tomorrow
Message -
From: Juan Francisco Fraile Vicente
To: Apostolos Syropoulos ; Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms
Sent: 04 May 2012 15:19
Subject: Re: [XeTeX] Babel
Although I don't use babel nowadays, I would like to thank to Javier Bezos
his effort and time in maintaining
To: Apostolos Syropoulos ; Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other
platforms
Sent: 04 May 2012 15:19
Subject: Re: [XeTeX] Babel
Although I don't use babel nowadays, I would like to thank to Javier Bezos
his effort and time in maintaining and improving it.
That's one of the best things of the *TeX world
If you think LaTeX is too archaic and should be put in museum (I do),
that is a different story.
At least we agree to something! In addition, I feel that we need to get
rid of many other programs, macro-packages, etc. For example, there is
absolutely no reason to maintain XDVI.
A.S.
into a nostalgic reverie...
John
- Original Message -
From: Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com
To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms xetex@tug.org
Sent: 04 May 2012 16:11
Subject: Re: [XeTeX] Babel
2012/5/4 John Was john@ntlworld.com:
I'm not going to get involved
Telling other people what they should maintain and what they *must* abandon
feels very arrogant. Why should a certain A.S. decide what is worth the
effort
and what is not?
Arrogant in what way? Have you ever tried to compile the TeX tree? In many
cases people have to invent stupid
- Original Message - From: Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com
To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms xetex@tug.org
Sent: 04 May 2012 16:11
Subject: Re: [XeTeX] Babel
2012/5/4 John Was john@ntlworld.com:
I'm not going to get involved in the polemics of this thread
2012/5/4 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com:
Telling other people what they should maintain and what they *must* abandon
feels very arrogant. Why should a certain A.S. decide what is worth the
effort
and what is not?
Arrogant in what way? Have you ever tried to compile the TeX
El 04/05/2012 9:24, Vafa Khalighi escribió:
Is there a mailing list/development repository for babel?
Sure. The repository is on:
http://www.latex-project.org/svnroot/latex2e-public/required/babel/
Until now, there are only changes in the test files.
As to the mailing list, I'm not sure.
- Original Message -
From: Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com
To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms xetex@tug.org
Sent: 04 May 2012 16:35
Subject: Re: [XeTeX] Babel
Telling other people what they should maintain and what they *must*
abandon
feels very arrogant. Why
On 04/05/2012 17:48, Javier Bezos wrote:
As to the mailing list, I'm not sure. There is the latex-l
list, but it's intended mainly for LaTeX3, and babel is a
LaTeX2e (and Plain) thing, but after cleaning up babel there
will be very likely further work on a new multilingual core
for LaTeX3,
Don't you feel yourself in a loop? If they patch it, they apparently
want to use it and if they want to use it, it is not useless for them
because if it were useless, they would not use it and thus they would
have no reason to patch it.
No! The problem is that people should start saying
I think it's arrogant in the strict sense that you arrogate to yourself the
right to tell others what tasks they should or should not be engaging in, and
you characterize the activity of those persisting in the tasks you would like
to
prohibit as 'stupid' (as in your most recent
2012/5/4 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com:
No! The problem is that people should start saying that certain parts
of the old TeX world are irrelevant and so they should not be part
of any TeX distribution. For example, on a set of recently compiled
You don't understand the idea of
On May 4, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote:
Don't you feel yourself in a loop? If they patch it, they apparently
want to use it and if they want to use it, it is not useless for them
because if it were useless, they would not use it and thus they would
have no reason to patch
2012/5/4 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com:
Don't you feel yourself in a loop? If they patch it, they apparently
want to use it and if they want to use it, it is not useless for them
because if it were useless, they would not use it and thus they would
have no reason to patch it.
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 09:44:22PM +0200, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
2012/5/4 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com:
The question is: why keeping the tex binary when the pdftex binary can
do the same things? If you throw away the tex binary, then you can
get rid of most useless binaries that
Hi Vafa,
Can your fixes be ported to upstream (that is babel itself)? That
reduces the amount of code you have to maintain as things get fixed at
the source. For some parts of bidi, that should be the ultimate aim
anyway I guess?
Best,
Dee
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Vafa Khalighi
bidi is LPPL. You can borrow codes from bidi (and I do not mind if you
take code from bidi and do not mention it comes from bidi) but I have no
plan to remove any code from bidi package. My aim, at least, is to make it
as stable as it can be.
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Diederick C.
I am a scientist, TeX is not my primary job, it is a hobby that I use
So you are a scientist and others are what? Idiots?
use as my hobby. I cannot tell my customers, please, wait a year or
so, I have to develop a new piece of software. Both in science and
That is your problem! Not mine, and
2012/5/3 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com:
Then use them, but please do not ask for updates! People should not
waste their precious time with outdated tools and packages.
Babel is the LaTeX standard for multilingual texts. Until something
else takes it's place, it must be maintained.
Babel is the LaTeX standard for multilingual texts. Until something
else takes it's place, it must be maintained.
For LaTeX not XeLaTeX! And LaTeX is not the standard for multilingual
typesetting.
A.S.
--
Apostolos Syropoulos
Xanthi, Greece
2012/5/3 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com:
I am a scientist, TeX is not my primary job, it is a hobby that I use
So you are a scientist and others are what? Idiots?
Have I written anything like that? You have written that development
of indic scripts support in luatex is a job for a
2012/5/3 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com:
Babel is the LaTeX standard for multilingual texts. Until something
else takes it's place, it must be maintained.
For LaTeX not XeLaTeX! And LaTeX is not the standard for multilingual
typesetting.
Do you want to say that Leslie Lamport
Javier, that's great news! I suppose you're part of the team
developing it?
Glad to see the ball gets rolling again for Babel.
Arthur
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
babel can use bidi package for its bidirectional typesetting rather than
its own (rlbabel.def) which has too many problems.
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Javier Bezos lis...@tex-tipografia.comwrote:
Hi all,
Babel gets back on track and it is again actively maintained. The
goals are mainly
And bidi, which rewrites half texmf/tex/latex/* tree is problem free :)
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 04:59:02PM +1000, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
babel can use bidi package for its bidirectional typesetting rather than its
own (rlbabel.def) which has too many problems.
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:54 PM,
No attempt will be done to take full advantage of the features
provided by XeTeX and LuaTeX, which would require a completely
new core (as for example polyglossia or as part of LaTeX3).
Your comments or suggestions (or questions!) are welcomed.
IMHO it is better to have on good project
if you do not like it, do not use it. Simple!
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote:
And bidi, which rewrites half texmf/tex/latex/* tree is problem free :)
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 04:59:02PM +1000, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
babel can use bidi package for its
On 02-05-2012 15:01, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote:
IMHO it is better to have on good project instead of two or three bad
projects. babel served well the LaTeX community but Ι don't see
why it should be updated? And please, no one doing serious work
in languages other than English should consider
Why shouldn't I consider using TeX? (I am Portuguese, by the way.)
Because XeTeX and luaTeX do a far better job! First you don't
need tricks to use UTF-8 and you don't have to create zillions of
files to make a TrueType partially usable. Do you need more reasons?
A.S.
Sure, so please don't make it required by a base package like babel.
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 12:02:29AM +1000, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
if you do not like it, do not use it. Simple!
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote:
And bidi, which rewrites half
What are you talking about?
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote:
Sure, so please don't make it required by a base package like babel.
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 12:02:29AM +1000, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
if you do not like it, do not use it. Simple!
On
May be you should try reading what you are replying to, starting with
the quoted mails below (in the reverse order that resulted from your top
posting).
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 12:38:00AM +1000, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
What are you talking about?
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Khaled Hosny
Arthur,
Javier, that's great news! I suppose you're part of the team
developing it?
Yes, I am.
Javier
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
2012/5/2 Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com:
Why shouldn't I consider using TeX? (I am Portuguese, by the way.)
Because XeTeX and luaTeX do a far better job! First you don't
need tricks to use UTF-8 and you don't have to create zillions of
files to make a TrueType partially usable.
That was not my point. The point was, if one person does not like a
package, it does not mean everyone else does not like it. BTW, based on
what Bezos said, I do not think there will be any changes to rlbabel.def.
bidi package is quite heaveily used and at least it is better/more complete
than any
I didn’t say it is bad or people should not be using it, but indirectly
claiming it is “problem-free” is very strong claim given how evasive it
is. 17000+ lines of code rewriting parts of a 100+ packages is not
something I’d force into people by making it a hard dependency of base
package like
babel can use bidi package for its bidirectional typesetting rather than
its own (rlbabel.def) which has too many problems.
Which ones? The LaTeX bugs database registers almost no bugs
related to bidirectional typesetting. Having information on
the problems are essential to fix them. Please,
So why bidi changes too many packages? maybe one simple example
demonstrates this:
try
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{lettrine}
\makeatletter
\input{rlbabel.def}
\@rltrue
\makeatother
\begin{document}
\lettrine{L}{orem} Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and
typesetting industry.
Which ones? The LaTeX bugs database registers almost no bugs
related to bidirectional typesetting. Having information on
the problems are essential to fix them. Please, send bug
reports or explain the problems and the expected behaviour.
Javier
Please read the archives of ivritex mailing
I did not say it is problem free. I exactly said babel can use bidi
package for its bidirectional typesetting rather than its own (rlbabel.def)
which has too many problems.. I only claimed that rlbabel.def has too many
problems and bidi does not have these. I do not see why this is strong. If
you
Another one:
\documentclass[twocolumn]{article}
\makeatletter
\input{rlbabel.def}
\@rltrue
\makeatother
\begin{document}
\tableofcontents
\section{Test 1}
Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry.
Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since
Another one:
\documentclass{article}
\makeatletter
\input{rlbabel.def}
\@rltrue
\makeatother
\begin{document}
\begin{equation}
1+2=3
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
1+2=3
\end{eqnarray}
\end{document}
Problem: first equation is on left, second equation on right.
Expected Behaviour: both
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/36982/babel-l-command-reverses-letters-inserts-symbol
and
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/24421/algorithmic-babel-with-hebrew-conflict-numbering-missing
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/32220/algorithmicx-conflicts-with-babel-with-hebrew
just
Another one:
\documentclass{article}
\makeatletter
\input{rlbabel.def}
\@rltrue
\makeatother
\begin{document}
\begin{figure}
\caption{This is a test This is a test This is a test This is a test
This is a test This is a test This is a test This is a test This is a
test This is a test}
Another one:
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\makeatletter
\input{rlbabel.def}
\@rltrue
\makeatother
\begin{document}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{flower}
\end{figure}
\end{document}
Problem: image is moved to the right instead being at the center.
Expected
El 02/05/2012 18:29, Vafa Khalighi escribió:
I can send you lots more, if you want to fix these.
Thanks. You may send them to me directly, if you want.
Javier
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
98 matches
Mail list logo