<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">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?<div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other
platforms <xetex@tug.org><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Thu, March 11, 2010 7:09:40 PM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?<br></font><br>
On 11 Mar 2010, at 17:48, Meho R. wrote:<br><br>> 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?<br><br>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?<br><br>The only time a package should override the default metadata is when the user explicitly specifies it, IMO.<br><br>JK<br><br>> From: Vafa Khalighi <<a ymailto="mailto:vafa@users.berlios.de" href="mailto:vafa@users.berlios.de">vafa@users.berlios.de</a>><br>> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <<a ymailto="mailto:xetex@tug.org" href="mailto:xetex@tug.org">xetex@tug.org</a>><br>>
Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 12:33:03 PM<br>> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?<br>> <br>> 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.<br>> <br>> I have done this because someone in the past requested it. Why is this unfair? <br>> <br>> -- <br>> Best wishes,<br>> Vafa Khalighi<br><br><br><br><br>--------------------------------------------------<br>Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:<br><span> <a target="_blank" href="http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex">http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex</a></span><br></div></div>
</div><br>
</body></html>