Ulrike Fischer <ne...@nililand.de> a écrit: > > Am Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:52:25 +0200 schrieb Paul Isambert: > > > >> I personally don't care much *how* e.g. open type fonts are handled. > >> The "typesetting engine" can use an external library, lua-files, or > >> some library included in the binary. I care only *if* the core > >> engine itself, the part advertised on the webpage, can handle the > >> fonts like a bare xetex can handle them. > >> > >> Sorry, but can you imagine that a typesetting engine can thrive > >> which must say on its webpage "I'm a wonderful tex engine based on > >> unicode but if you want to use open type fonts you will have to > >> write or adapt a lot of complicated code first".? > > > > Honestly, yes :) > > That's what TeX is to me anyway: a wonderful system that requires a lot > > of hard work. > > > > On http://www.luatex.org/roadmap.html, you can read: > > > > There are two solutions for handling fonts: using the internal > > functions that do what TeX has always done, or write a Lua function > > that does a different job. As there are multiple solutions possible > > and as we expect macro packages to have their own ways of dealing > > with fonts, there is not one solution for dealing with fonts anyway. > > Also, TeXies have always wanted full control over matters, and this > > is provided by the Lua solution. > > But allowing packages or formats to write and use their own code for > open type fonts doesn't mean that the "luatex project" can ignore > open type fonts completly. The fact that latex users can write > beautiful and powerful packages e.g. for tabulars don't mean that > the latex kernel don't have to provide code for tabulars. > > I don't ask that a font loader should be included in the binary. A > lua package which you can use in the font callback is fine. It is > also okay if you need to adapt a configuration file before use e.g. > to get it working with your texsystem or your os. The main point is > that a working, default open type font loader should exist at all.
I think we simply disagree on the status of luaotfload. I see it as that default fontloader you're talking about; non-ConTeXt users aren't neglected (which was my starting point), thanks to it, although it doesn't mean something better shouldn't be conceived by format authors. As I understand you, it's not enough and it's imperfect anyway, so you see the development of LuaTeX as terribly lacking in that respect. I don't expect we'll agree on the subject, but at least I hope I got you right. > > In a few years, TeX users will have sprouted new wizards that'll deal > > with fonts like the current wizards play with \output and \expandafter. > > Two years ago I would have said this too. But now I doubt it. > Opentype fonts are much more complicated that some expandafters or > the latex output routine. I'm not so sure. At least my personal experience tells me otherwise: while OpenType was no pleasure cruise, it certainly wasn't as strange an adventure as TeX. > Also - more importantly - I see none of > the needed discussion going on. Until Khaled's recent announcement that he wouldn't continue luaotfload, there was perhaps little need for most non-ConTeXt users; everybody was more or less happy with the status quo; hopefully now people will act. I haven't used luaotfload in months because I've developed my own fontloader, and I know I'm not the only one in that position; sooner or later something will emerge. All in all, we're not in a situation so different to that where XeTeX is now, which spurred this discussion. Perhaps I'm overly optimistic; yet I trust the community of TeXies, which advances slowly yet decidedly. Best, Paul -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex