[lltx] Re: Request to mailing list XeTeX rejected
Elie Roux
elie.roux at telecom-bretagne.eu
Wed Mar 24 21:37:56 CET 2010
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.
More information about the lualatex-dev
mailing list