I have a naive question? There is a possibility of calling PERL or Python from latex using perltex package. Is this possible in xetex? Will this feature be good enough? Best, On 2 Jul 2015 20:58, <xetex-requ...@tug.org> wrote:
> Send XeTeX mailing list submissions to > xetex@tug.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > xetex-requ...@tug.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > xetex-ow...@tug.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of XeTeX digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: \(pdf)mdfivesum (Apostolos Syropoulos) > 2. Re: \(pdf)mdfivesum (Joseph Wright) > 3. Re: \(pdf)mdfivesum (George N. White III) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 14:53:16 +0000 > From: Apostolos Syropoulos <asyropou...@yahoo.com> > To: "XeTeX (Unicode-based TeX) discussion." <xetex@tug.org> > Subject: Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum > Message-ID: > <1865847164.1043798.1435848796532.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > If MD5 is necessary for compatibility with some existing standard, so be > > it; but it's not secure anymore and it shouldn't be used in any new > > design > > where there's a concern about possible deliberate tampering, as opposed > to > > accidental errors. SHA1 is deprecated, too. I think SHA256 is the > > current "best practice." > > > > > > So someone will step in and implement this primitive but then we will > realize we > need another primitive to handle the more advanced sha256. Programming > languages > > have libraries for this and they do not modify the language to handle > every new > feature. So the best solution is to introduce some library mechanism that > would > > make it possible to introduce new commands without affecting the kernel. > > A.S. > > > ---------------------- > Apostolos Syropoulos > Xanthi, Greece > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 16:09:36 +0100 > From: Joseph Wright <joseph.wri...@morningstar2.co.uk> > To: <xetex@tug.org> > Subject: Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum > Message-ID: <55955430.9060...@morningstar2.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > On 02/07/2015 05:54, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: > > If MD5 is necessary for compatibility with some existing standard, so be > > it; but it's not secure anymore and it shouldn't be used in any new > design > > where there's a concern about possible deliberate tampering, as opposed > to > > accidental errors. SHA1 is deprecated, too. I think SHA256 is the > > current "best practice." > > Depends what you are using it for. Collisions are possible in MD5 so > it's no longer suitable for cryptographic applications. Here, however, > we are talking about avoiding the more prosaic issues of people having > not-quite matching sources. (We are *not* talking about signing > documents.) For the use case I have in mind MD5 will happily do the job. > -- > Joseph Wright > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 12:23:45 -0300 > From: "George N. White III" <gnw...@gmail.com> > To: "XeTeX (Unicode-based TeX) discussion." <xetex@tug.org> > Subject: Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum > Message-ID: > <CAKTOP46Kqbef4c4n-tU+ZAJHPBJfWXLviwP1WAMKyco8X6md= > q...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Joseph Wright < > joseph.wri...@morningstar2.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 02/07/2015 05:54, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: > > > If MD5 is necessary for compatibility with some existing standard, so > be > > > it; but it's not secure anymore and it shouldn't be used in any new > > design > > > where there's a concern about possible deliberate tampering, as opposed > > to > > > accidental errors. SHA1 is deprecated, too. I think SHA256 is the > > > current "best practice." > > > > Depends what you are using it for. Collisions are possible in MD5 so > > it's no longer suitable for cryptographic applications. Here, however, > > we are talking about avoiding the more prosaic issues of people having > > not-quite matching sources. (We are *not* talking about signing > > documents.) For the use case I have in mind MD5 will happily do the job. > > > > Maybe your use case is enough at present, but the other use cases (some > already mentioned) may become important in the future. It makes sense > to implement MD5 in a way that anticipates future additions/enhancements. > > -- > George N. White III <aa...@chebucto.ns.ca> > Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20150702/e21e9128/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > XeTeX mailing list > XeTeX@tug.org > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > > > ------------------------------ > > End of XeTeX Digest, Vol 136, Issue 7 > ************************************* >
-------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex