[XeTeX] Babel

[Vafa Khalighi]

So why bidi changes too many packages? maybe one simple example
demonstrates this:

try

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{lettrine}
\makeatletter
\input{rlbabel.def}
\@rltrue
\makeatother
\begin{document}
\lettrine{L}{orem} Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and
typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy
text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type
and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only
five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining
essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of
Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with
desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of
Lorem Ipsum.
\end{document}

versus

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{lettrine}
\usepackage[RTLdocument]{bidi}
\begin{document}
\lettrine{L}{orem} Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and
typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy
text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type
and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only
five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining
essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of
Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with
desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of
Lorem Ipsum.
\end{document}

and compare the output.



On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Vafa Khalighi <simurgh12 at gmail.com> wrote:

> That was not my point. The point was, if one person does not like a
> package, it does not mean everyone else does not like it. BTW, based on
> what Bezos said, I do not think there will be any changes to rlbabel.def.
> bidi package is quite heaveily used and at least it is better/more complete
> than any other package providing bidi support for etex based engines. One
> should get familiar with the problems of bidirectional typesetting in etex
> to appreciate what bidi does. Sorry, but you can not write 10 lines of TeX
> code (just because you hate TeX coding) and believe falsely that things
> will be fine.
>
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny at eglug.org>wrote:
>
>> May be you should try reading what you are replying to, starting with
>> the quoted mails below (in the reverse order that resulted from your top
>> posting).
>>
>> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 12:38:00AM +1000, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
>> > What are you talking about?
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny at eglug.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     Sure, so please don't make it required by a base package like babel.
>> >
>> >     On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 12:02:29AM +1000, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
>> >     > if you do not like it, do not use it. Simple!
>> >     >
>> >     > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Khaled Hosny <
>> khaledhosny at eglug.org>
>> >     wrote:
>> >     >
>> >     >     And bidi, which rewrites half texmf/tex/latex/* tree is
>> problem free
>> >     :)
>> >     >
>> >     >     On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 04:59:02PM +1000, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
>> >     >     > babel can use bidi package for its bidirectional
>> typesetting rather
>> >     than
>> >     >     its
>> >     >     > own (rlbabel.def) which has too many problems.
>> >     >     >
>> >     >     > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Javier Bezos <
>> >     listas at tex-tipografia.com>
>> >     >     wrote:
>> >     >     >
>> >     >     >     Hi all,
>> >     >     >
>> >     >     >     Babel gets back on track and it is again actively
>> maintained.
>> >     The
>> >     >     >     goals are mainly to fix bugs, to make it compatible
>> with XeTeX
>> >     and
>> >     >     >     LuaTeX (as far as possible), and perhaps to add some
>> minor new
>> >     >     >     features (provided they are backward compatible).
>> >     >     >
>> >     >     >     No attempt will be done to take full advantage of the
>> features
>> >     >     >     provided by XeTeX and LuaTeX, which would require a
>> completely
>> >     >     >     new core (as for example polyglossia or as part of
>> LaTeX3).
>> >     >     >
>> >     >     >     Your comments or suggestions (or questions!) are
>> welcomed.
>> >     >     >
>> >     >     >     Javier
>> >     >     >
>> >     >     >
>> >     >     >     --------------------------------------------------
>> >     >     >     Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
>> >     >     >      http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>> >     >     >
>> >     >     >
>> >     >
>> >     >     >
>> >     >     >
>> >     >     > --------------------------------------------------
>> >     >     > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
>> >     >     >   http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>> >     >
>> >     >
>> >     >
>> >     >     --------------------------------------------------
>> >     >     Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
>> >     >      http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>> >     >
>> >     >
>> >
>> >     >
>> >     >
>> >     > --------------------------------------------------
>> >     > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
>> >     >   http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >     --------------------------------------------------
>> >     Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
>> >      http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>> >
>> >
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------
>> > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
>> >   http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> 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/20120503/1ebbcdfb/attachment.html>