On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 04:29:47PM +0100, David Carlisle wrote: > Is there no other way that the issues you have could be addressed > without introducing TeX-XeT?
I first reported this issue in 2008, 7 years ago, so it seems it is not going to go way magically, much to my surprise. Peter Breitenlohner became aware of this issue 2 years ago and a fix were promised but nothing so far (not that I blame him). > The more we look at this the more it seems a very unfortunate step, > introducing several incompatibilities > with pdftex and luatex. That is unfortunate. > Especially if there is a possibility of moving in the end to an > Omega/luatex model for bidirectional support > introducing a change at this point seems a strange choice. AFAICS, a port from Omega model is unlikely to happen, it is a big invasive change and is as untested as the TeX-XeT model and has its own share of problems, and, more importantly, no one seems to be stepping up to do the required work. > The extra nodes added here really are a backward step, my first > suggestion of only conditionally > adding them doesn't really work if boxes containing math are saved and > used in different contexts. I fail to see that catastrophe this is causing. > Especially now in the Texlive 2015 pretest period there is so little > time to test any > changes. > > Would it be possible to back it out this change at least until after > TL2015 is released > That would give time to investigate a more compatible way to address the > issues? This was backed out for 2014 release, if I’m going to back it out for each release why bother with it at all? Regards, Khaled -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
