[XeTeX] Automatic Verse Numbering
Wilfred van Rooijen
wvanrooijen at yahoo.com
Fri Mar 12 00:43:19 CET 2010
Hi,
I suggest you take a look at the "ledmac" and "ledpar" packages, which, according to the description, are latex package for "critical editions", including many options to set poems, line numbering, footnotes, etc.
By the way this list is specific for xe(la)tex. Your question would be better posted to a "general latex" list or newsgroup.
Later,
Wilfred
--- On Fri, 12/3/10, Anant Upadhyayula <uanant at yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Anant Upadhyayula <uanant at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [XeTeX] Automatic Verse Numbering
> To: xetex at tug.org
> Date: Friday, 12 March, 2010, 4:55 AM
> Hello
> Everyone
> in
> Latex the verse are written in this format \begin{verse}
> This is line one of verse
> ........\\
> Line two of the verse
> .............\\ Chap1.1
>
> This is line one of verse
> ........\\ Line two of the
> verse .............\\ Chap1.2\end
> {verse}
> I
> was wondering how can I
> put a automatic counter at the end of each verse, linked
> to the chapter so that as I can add verses to a particular
> chapter it would increase it by one. Something like the one
> shown above.
> Is
> it something that can be done or far fetched thing? I tried
> \begin{enumerate} ... \end{enumerate} that did
> not work.
> I
> would appreciate your help. -Anant
>
>
>
> From:
> "xetex-request at tug.org"
> <xetex-request at tug.org>
> To:
> xetex at tug.org
> Sent: Thu,
> March 11, 2010 2:35:14 PM
> Subject:
> XeTeX Digest, Vol 72, Issue 23
>
>
> Send XeTeX mailing list submissions to
> xetex at tug.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> xetex-request at tug.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> xetex-owner at tug.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> specific
> than "Re: Contents of XeTeX digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. PDF Creator: "bidi"? (Meho R.)
> 2. Re: PDF Creator: "bidi"? (Petr
> Tomasek)
>
> 3. Re: PDF Creator: "bidi"? (Vafa Khalighi)
> 4. Re: PDF Creator: "bidi"? (Rembrandt
> Wolpert)
> 5. Re: PDF Creator: "bidi"? (Meho R.)
> 6. Re: PDF Creator: "bidi"? (Jonathan
> Kew)
> 7. Re: PDF Creator: "bidi"? (Meho R.)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:03:49 -0800 (PST)
> From: "Meho R." <meho_r at yahoo.com>
> To: XeTeX <xetex at tug.org>
> Subject: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
> Message-ID: <560113.61647.qm at web110411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20100311/5969fcab/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:13:05 +0100
> From: Petr Tomasek <tomasek at etf.cuni.cz>
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms
> <xetex at tug.org>
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
> Message-ID: <20100311141305.GA21807 at ebed.etf.cuni.cz>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 03:03:49AM -0800, Meho R. wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Isn't it the "bidi-package"?
>
> --
> Petr Tomasek <http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~tomasek>
> Jabber: butrus at jabbim.cz
> SIP: butrus at ekiga.net
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:33:03 +1100
> From: Vafa Khalighi <vafa at users.berlios.de>
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms
> <xetex at tug.org>
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
> Message-ID:
> <b5215f01003110333i57c26ddep8dc530f3c125ee22 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> I have done this because someone in the past requested it.
> Why is this
> unfair?
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Vafa Khalighi
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20100311/cf31c9c7/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:14:24 -0600
> From: Rembrandt Wolpert <wolpert at uark.edu>
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms
> <xetex at tug.org>
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
> Message-ID:
> <8937c5991003110814q41ad7745k8574a8358a1cadb8 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> because bidi has done absolutely noting in the
> creation of the pdf-file from
> this minimal text, but claims it:
>
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{bidi,xltxtra}
> \setmainfont{STFangsong}
> \begin{document}
> ???
> \end{document}
>
> Rembrandt
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 05:33, Vafa Khalighi <vafa at users.berlios.de>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> > I have done this because someone in the past requested
> it. Why is this
> > unfair?
> >
> >
> --
> > Best wishes,
> > Vafa Khalighi
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
> > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ???????????
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20100311/f99c2328/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:48:48 -0800 (PST)
> From: "Meho R." <meho_r at yahoo.com>
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms
> <xetex at tug.org>
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
> Message-ID: <61250.85409.qm at web110413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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?
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Vafa Khalighi <vafa at users.berlios.de>
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms
> <xetex at tug.org>
> Sent: Thu, March 11,
> 2010 12:33:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
>
>
>
>
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> I have done this because someone in the past requested it.
> Why is this unfair?
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Vafa Khalighi
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20100311/30921262/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:09:40 +0000
> From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame at googlemail.com>
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms
> <xetex at tug.org>
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
> Message-ID: <61CAA05A-F3EC-4B85-8187-8E75A3701E18 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On 11 Mar 2010, at 17:48, Meho R. wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> 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?
>
> The only time a package should override the default
> metadata is when the user explicitly specifies it, IMO.
>
> JK
>
> > From: Vafa Khalighi <vafa at users.berlios.de>
> > To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms
> <xetex at tug.org>
> > Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 12:33:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
> >
>
> > 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.
> >
> > I have done this because someone in the past requested
> it. Why is this unfair?
> >
> > --
> > Best wishes,
> > Vafa Khalighi
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:35:06 -0800 (PST)
> From: "Meho R." <meho_r at yahoo.com>
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms
> <xetex at tug.org>
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
> Message-ID:
> <681322.20302.qm at web110412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame at googlemail.com>
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms
> <xetex at tug.org>
> Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 7:09:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
>
> On 11 Mar 2010, at 17:48, Meho R. wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> 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?
>
> The only time a package should override the default
> metadata is when the user explicitly specifies it, IMO.
>
> JK
>
> > From: Vafa Khalighi <vafa at users.berlios.de>
> > To:
> Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
> > Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 12:33:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: "bidi"?
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > I have done this because someone in the past requested
> it. Why is this unfair?
> >
> > --
> > Best wishes,
> > Vafa Khalighi
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20100311/6cc7cf3a/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> XeTeX mailing list
> XeTeX at tug.org
> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>
>
> End of XeTeX Digest, Vol 72, Issue 23
> *************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>
Get your preferred Email name!
Now you can @ymail.com and @rocketmail.com.
http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/aa/
More information about the XeTeX
mailing list