[XeTeX] Automatic Verse Numbering

Anant Upadhyayula uanant at yahoo.com
Thu Mar 11 20:55:38 CET 2010


Hello Everyone
 in Latex the verse are written in this format 
\begin{verse}
          This is line one of verse ........\\
  Line two of the verse .............\\ Chap1.1

          This is line one of verse ........\\
  Line two of the verse .............\\ Chap1.2
\end {verse}

I was wondering how can I put a automatic counter at the end of each verse, linked to the chapter so that as I can add verses to a particular chapter it would increase it by one. Something like the one shown above. 

Is it something that can be done or far fetched thing? I tried \begin{enumerate} ... \end{enumerate} that did not work. 

I would appreciate your help. 
-Anant
 





________________________________
From: "xetex-request at tug.org" <xetex-request at tug.org>
To: xetex at tug.org
Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 2:35:14 PM
Subject: XeTeX Digest, Vol 72, Issue 23

Send XeTeX mailing list submissions to
    xetex at 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-request at tug.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
    xetex-owner at tug.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of XeTeX digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. PDF Creator: "bidi"? (Meho R.)
   2. Re: PDF Creator: "bidi"? (Petr Tomasek)
   3. Re: PDF Creator: "bidi"? (Vafa Khalighi)
   4. Re: PDF Creator: "bidi"? (Rembrandt Wolpert)
   5. Re: PDF Creator: "bidi"? (Meho R.)
   6. Re: PDF Creator: "bidi"? (Jonathan Kew)
   7. Re: PDF Creator: "bidi"? (Meho R.)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:03:49 -0800 (PST)
From: "Meho R." <meho_r at yahoo.com>
To: XeTeX <xetex at tug.org>
Subject: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
Message-ID: <560113.61647.qm at web110411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi,

This is question for Vafa: can you explain what is the reason that in .pdf file, created using xelatex+polyglossia with use of arabic as secondary language (the main is latin), bidi is credited as "creator"? I do understand that bidi is used for arabic, but, with due respect, I think it's very unfair to declare it as creator application instead of xe(la)tex.



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20100311/5969fcab/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:13:05 +0100
From: Petr Tomasek <tomasek at etf.cuni.cz>
To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
Message-ID: <20100311141305.GA21807 at ebed.etf.cuni.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 03:03:49AM -0800, Meho R. wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This is question for Vafa: can you explain what is the reason that in .pdf file, created using xelatex+polyglossia with use of arabic as secondary language (the main is latin), bidi is credited as "creator"? I do understand that bidi is used for arabic, but, with due respect, I think it's very unfair to declare it as creator application instead of xe(la)tex.
> 

Isn't it the "bidi-package"?

-- 
Petr Tomasek <http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~tomasek>
Jabber: butrus at jabbim.cz
SIP: butrus at ekiga.net


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:33:03 +1100
From: Vafa Khalighi <vafa at users.berlios.de>
To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
Message-ID:
    <b5215f01003110333i57c26ddep8dc530f3c125ee22 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

>
> This is question for Vafa: can you explain what is the reason that in .pdf
> file, created using xelatex+polyglossia with use of arabic as secondary
> language (the main is latin), bidi is credited as "creator"? I do understand
> that bidi is used for arabic, but, with due respect, I think it's very
> unfair to declare it as creator application instead of xe(la)tex.
>
>
I have done this because someone in the past requested it. Why is this
unfair?

-- 
Best wishes,
Vafa Khalighi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20100311/cf31c9c7/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:14:24 -0600
From: Rembrandt Wolpert <wolpert at uark.edu>
To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
Message-ID:
    <8937c5991003110814q41ad7745k8574a8358a1cadb8 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

because bidi has done absolutely noting in the creation of the pdf-file from
this minimal text, but claims it:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{bidi,xltxtra}
\setmainfont{STFangsong}
\begin{document}
???
\end{document}

Rembrandt


On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 05:33, Vafa Khalighi <vafa at users.berlios.de> wrote:

>
>
>> This is question for Vafa: can you explain what is the reason that in .pdf
>> file, created using xelatex+polyglossia with use of arabic as secondary
>> language (the main is latin), bidi is credited as "creator"? I do understand
>> that bidi is used for arabic, but, with due respect, I think it's very
>> unfair to declare it as creator application instead of xe(la)tex.
>>
>>
> I have done this because someone in the past requested it. Why is this
> unfair?
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Vafa Khalighi
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
>  http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>
>


-- 
???????????
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20100311/f99c2328/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:48:48 -0800 (PST)
From: "Meho R." <meho_r at yahoo.com>
To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
Message-ID: <61250.85409.qm at web110413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

As noted, because bidi isn't the creator of the PDF file and still claims it is. "Created by Xe(La)TeX with bidi package" (something like "Created by LaTeX with hyperref package") would be a little bit more acceptable, don't you think?




________________________________
From: Vafa Khalighi <vafa at users.berlios.de>
To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 12:33:03 PM
Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?





>This is question for Vafa: can you explain what is the reason that in .pdf file, created using xelatex+polyglossia with use of arabic as secondary language (the main is latin), bidi is credited as "creator"? I do understand that bidi is used for arabic, but, with due respect, I think it's very unfair to declare it as creator application instead of xe(la)tex.
>
>
I have done this because someone in the past requested it. Why is this unfair? 

-- 
Best wishes,
Vafa Khalighi



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20100311/30921262/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:09:40 +0000
From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame at googlemail.com>
To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
Message-ID: <61CAA05A-F3EC-4B85-8187-8E75A3701E18 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On 11 Mar 2010, at 17:48, Meho R. wrote:

> As noted, because bidi isn't the creator of the PDF file and still claims it is. "Created by Xe(La)TeX with bidi package" (something like "Created by LaTeX with hyperref package") would be a little bit more acceptable, don't you think?

Personally, I think packages should not be doing this at all (though I believe hyperref has a long history of it). What if you use both hyperref *and* bidi -- who wins? What if every package author decides to start rewriting the Creator string?

The only time a package should override the default metadata is when the user explicitly specifies it, IMO.

JK

> From: Vafa Khalighi <vafa at users.berlios.de>
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
> Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 12:33:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
> 
> This is question for Vafa: can you explain what is the reason that in .pdf file, created using xelatex+polyglossia with use of arabic as secondary language (the main is latin), bidi is credited as "creator"? I do understand that bidi is used for arabic, but, with due respect, I think it's very unfair to declare it as creator application instead of xe(la)tex.
> 
> I have done this because someone in the past requested it. Why is this unfair? 
> 
> -- 
> Best wishes,
> Vafa Khalighi




------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:35:06 -0800 (PST)
From: "Meho R." <meho_r at yahoo.com>
To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
Message-ID: <681322.20302.qm at web110412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I totally agree. I've never liked seeing hyperref entry in pdf details/properties, but at least it doesn't negate the real creator of document. For me, bidi is a very important package and its author and maintainer deserve all praise, but I really think it shouldn't be in pdf details/properties. Jonathan has got the point: what about other packages used in a document, why they don't get their piece of credits?



________________________________
From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame at googlemail.com>
To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 7:09:40 PM
Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?

On 11 Mar 2010, at 17:48, Meho R. wrote:

> As noted, because bidi isn't the creator of the PDF file and still claims it is. "Created by Xe(La)TeX with bidi package" (something like "Created by LaTeX with hyperref package") would be a little bit more acceptable, don't you think?

Personally, I think packages should not be doing this at all (though I believe hyperref has a long history of it). What if you use both hyperref *and* bidi -- who wins? What if every package author decides to start rewriting the Creator string?

The only time a package should override the default metadata is when the user explicitly specifies it, IMO.

JK

> From: Vafa Khalighi <vafa at users.berlios.de>
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
> Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 12:33:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
> 
> This is question for Vafa: can you explain what is the reason that in .pdf file, created using xelatex+polyglossia with use of arabic as secondary language (the main is latin), bidi is credited as "creator"? I do understand that bidi is used for arabic, but, with due respect, I think it's very unfair to declare it as creator application instead of xe(la)tex.
> 
> I have done this because someone in the past requested it. Why is this unfair? 
> 
> -- 
> Best wishes,
> Vafa Khalighi




--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
  http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20100311/6cc7cf3a/attachment.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
XeTeX mailing list
XeTeX at tug.org
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex


End of XeTeX Digest, Vol 72, Issue 23
*************************************



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20100311/0a45fe43/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the XeTeX mailing list