[XeTeX] [arXiv #128410] Re: XeLaTeX generated pdf metadata

[maxwell]

On 2014-09-22 22:04, Axel E. Retif wrote:
> On 09/22/2014 08:42 PM, Mike Maxwell wrote:
> 
>> I guess these jokers haven't heard of Unicode.  Are they stuck back in
>> the 1990s?
> 
> Are you and Philip Taylor even aware that you're replying directly to
> an arXiv administrator?
> 
> I think arXiv and Cornell University are doing a great service to the
> scientific community and public in general and deserve more respect.

For the record, I was on the other side of this issue in the early 
2000s, and was told I should move into the 21st century.  The person who 
told me that was right, and I was wrong.  Having been converted, I feel 
the need to proselytize; apologies, though, for coming across as brash.

I'm a linguist, so I constantly deal with other scripts.  Unicode is 
essential for our work, and its use has been routine in linguistics and 
computational linguistics publications and data archiving for over a 
decade.  All the language archiving sites I know about will accept 
*only* Unicode (or at the very least discourage non-Unicode 
submissions).

So no, I don't understand why an archiving service would not allow 
Unicode-encoded papers, even if it does require xelatex.  (For the 
record, I think the font is a red herring, since afaik the font license 
issue comes up regardless of whether you're using latex or xelatex.)

    Mike Maxwell