# [lltx] announcing lualatex-doc

Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard mpg at elzevir.fr
Mon Nov 8 18:00:36 CET 2010

Le 08/11/2010 17:16, Stephan Hennig a écrit :
> * Add a warning/note that different line (and page) breaks are to be
>     expected in comparison to pdfLaTeX, because LuaTeX has some modified
>     algorithms, different font formats might have different metrics,
>     LuaTeX doesn't necessarily uses the same hyphenation patterns than
>     pdfTeX, ...
>
It's not very clear to me to which extend one may expect differences. I'm under
the impression the differences in the algorithm are mostly negligible except in
edge case. The patterns are the same for XeTeX and LuaTeX. Your recent example
was due to a bug in LuaTeX, fixed since.

So, the only important source of differences is the fonts that may not be
selected the same way and are never used in exactly the same way (there is a
fundamental difference between XeTeX and LuaTeX here indeed).

I'm not saying there are no differences, but for the moment I'm hesitating to
mention them since the extent isn't very clear to me.

> * What about language support (babel/polyglossia)?
>
Right, I forgot that. That's also an area where I'll need to investigate before
everything is clear to me. I'll add a stub in the meanwhile.

> * Given that lualatex is the name of a binary and the document doesn't
>    really focus on that binary, i.e., it doesn't contain the
>    command-line description of lualatex, I suggest renaming the document.
>    What comes to mind is 'latex-luatex,' but just replacing 'doc' by
>    'guide' or 'intro' might suffice as well.
>
I slightly disagree: in my mind, \LuaLaTeX is the "abstract" engine+format
thing, while \textt{lualatex} is the name of the command. Also, I don't think
-doc implies being about the command more than -intro or -guide. I may
reconsider this is other readers make similar remarks, however.

Thanks very much for your feedback,
Manuel.