[lltx] Re: Request to mailing list XeTeX rejected
elie.roux at telecom-bretagne.eu
Wed Mar 24 21:37:56 CET 2010
xetex-owner at tug.org a écrit :
> "Hello Elie,
> 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!
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.
More information about the lualatex-dev