[tex-hyphen] luatex-hyphen & TL
mojca.miklavec.lists at gmail.com
Sun May 23 20:53:24 CEST 2010
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 17:14, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Sa, 22 Mai 2010, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>> This is really ugly to me.
>> Second: Karl has already objected to that in past, but in case that
>> you do generate luatex-specific language.dat.lua, instead of
>> luaspecial="disabled:only usable in 8bit engines", I would much prefer
>> to have something like
>> and for indic scripts
>> then you could just as well generate two language.dat files: one for
>> 8bit engines and one for XeTeX. And even if not: the syntax would be
>> much more clean.
> So what are the cases we have to decide?
> group 1:
> handled with the loader patterns for pdftex and related ones
> group 2:
> xetex that can only load utf8 patterns
> group 3:
> luatex, another set
> Is that right? In additon, group 2 is a subset of group 1, right?
> And group 3???
> I would like to see some orthogonality.
My idea in your nomenclature:
- group 1: for pdftex and related (language.dat)
- group 2: for XeTeX (language.dat in different xetex-specific tree)
- group 3: for LuaTeX (using language.dat.lua)
- The set of languages is exactly equal for group 2 and 3, it's only
that they are loaded in a different way. (Though there might be a
slight catch since luatex should be able to use "more advanced
patterns", so it may happen that the files won't be equal any more in
future; but that doesn't depend on me; an example is Hungarian that
uses different patterns for OpenOffice and TeX, generated by the same
- Group 1 is not a subgroup of 2/3. The majority of languages is the
same, but some are only usable in group 2/3 and some are only usable
in group 1.
- Both 8-bit and XeTeX patterns would still be loaded using the same
The answers to other questions later ...
More information about the tex-hyphen