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 have used both packages, you will realise that it is a reality not even a claim. I did not force anyone to use anything, I only suggested. You know, nothing is problem free, if you even write 5 lines of TeX code, it would not be problem free.
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Khaled Hosny <khaledho...@eglug.org> wrote: > 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, no matter how useful it is as the whole approach is > fundamentally flawed and very fragile, this is IMO one of the very dark > sides of LaTeX. > > > >
-------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
