[lltx] Re: Request to mailing list XeTeX rejected

[Elie Roux]

xetex-owner at tug.org a écrit :
> "Hello Elie, 
>   

Hello Ross,

> I have discussed the licence of xunicode with Karl Berry, and plan to
> make it essentially freely available, but would prefer it that I'm
> kept aware of any forks and changes. That is how I see it as being
> already, but others such as yourself seem to have the view that if
> nothing is said explicitly then it means "hands-off, do not touch" --
> I strongly disagree with this attitude, but will nevertheless add a
> licence statement sometime soon.
>   

Thank you! That was actually the point of making my post aggressive, I'm 
glad it worked, sorry for having been a bit brutal.

> As for your imputation that  xunicode  has been abandoned, I find this
> quite offensive. There can be many, many reasons why someone cannot
> respond quickly to your requests for action. This is especially so
> where the work is done voluntarily.
>   

In fact, I come from the open-source community, and usually the 
development is not done by only one person (like for 90% of TeX/LaTeX 
development), but by a community that sends patches, remarks, etc. This 
is what I tried to do with xunicode, and it didn't work, I'm really sad 
you still want to keep this model, I think a lot of packages would 
benefit from an open development. We are developping all the LuaLaTeX 
packages like this, and we have to interact with two closed-developped 
packages which are xunicode and microtype. Believe me it's very hard and 
frustrating when you have a community working on a project that depends 
on two packets for which we can't submit patches or even have 
informations... We would benefit a lot from an open development, that's 
why I had the idea to fork, after sending you several unanswered messages...

Maybe you could reply me that I should be more patient, but the thing is 
it's very strange to have such a development team and not to use it 
because the model of development is unapropriate...

> In fact my plan for xunicode --- when I get the time to do it --- is
> to split the file into 2 (or more) parts. One will define the
> important macros, the other will control the declarations of all the
> Unicode entities and accent combinations. This is to enable the 2nd
> part to be reloaded multiple times, with different values of the
> encoding string; e.g., 'U', 'EU','EU1' or anything else. This will
> make it much easier to adapt encodings to specific fonts, and to
> implement fall-back actions when a font is found to be missing
> specific characters that are required within a document. When I have
> done this, the version number will become 1.0 .
>   

That will be great... but TeXLive 2010 is approaching, and a lot of 
users would benefit from a xunicode working with LuaTeX. You already 
have the patch, what does prevent you from submiting it to the CTAN? 
That's the point that I cannot even try to understand...

> I hope this serves adequately as the answer that you have been
> seeking. Maybe quite soon there will be an interim update of xunicode
> that includes a test that allows luatex to proceed. This is not the
> only change that is "in the works".

I hope so! Anyway, for TeXLive 2010, I still think it's a good idea to 
fork if no update is available... Of course, the fork's development 
would be open and patch submission would be gladly accepted!

Thank you,
-- 
Elie

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lualatex-dev+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.