[XeTeX] XeTeX Digest, Vol 136, Issue 7

[S. venkataraman]

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-request at tug.org> wrote:

> 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. 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 <asyropoulos at yahoo.com>
> To: "XeTeX (Unicode-based TeX) discussion." <xetex at tug.org>
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum
> Message-ID:
>         <1865847164.1043798.1435848796532.JavaMail.yahoo at 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.wright at morningstar2.co.uk>
> To: <xetex at tug.org>
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum
> Message-ID: <55955430.9060908 at morningstar2.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> On 02/07/2015 05:54, mskala at 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" <gnwiii at gmail.com>
> To: "XeTeX (Unicode-based TeX) discussion." <xetex at tug.org>
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum
> Message-ID:
>         <CAKTOP46Kqbef4c4n-tU+ZAJHPBJfWXLviwP1WAMKyco8X6md=
> Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Joseph Wright <
> joseph.wright at morningstar2.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 02/07/2015 05:54, mskala at 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 <aa056 at 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 at tug.org
> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of XeTeX Digest, Vol 136, Issue 7
> *************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20150703/56cc5f62/attachment-0001.html>