[XeTeX] XeTeX in lshort

[Keith J. Schultz]

Hi Elliot,

	There is nothing like a fool question. 

	As to ConTeXt and LuaTeX. When ConTeXt came out i thought that is
	what I was waiting for, but when I went to the manuals I went UGHH!
	How was this suppose to be easier than LaTeX. Since I did have the time
	and nerve to learn, I let it drop, but that was just me and it has evolved 
	Can not say any about Lua.

	When xetex first can out I thought, oh goody I can use all my Mac fonts and easier
	input. Look at the documentation and became similarly disillusioned.
	Several years later I am back on the band wagon and say things are looking good
	and are a lot easier to use.

	Wether, you use Xe(La)TeX, Lua, or ConTeXt I would say it is a matter of preference.
	To get better information about Lua and ConTeXt go to a dedicated list.

	regards
		Keith.


Am 03.10.2010 um 21:23 schrieb Elliott Roper:

> 
> On 2 Oct 2010, at 19:12, Philipp Stephani wrote:
> 
>> Am 30.09.2010 um 20:12 schrieb Elliott Roper:
>> 
>>> What I'm lacking is a set of beginner documents that ties all the TeX zoo together. Do I have to read source to find the definitive answer to which package has what package as a pre-requisite?
>> 
>> Yes, and that won't change until LaTeX becomes a second ConTeXt.
> Hello again. I think I better postpone that discussion until I have experimented a lot more. I would be wasting your time and that of others on this list. I have been trying ConTeXt and LuaTeX as well as LaTeX and XeTeX with various packages and classes. Until I can clearly state what my problems with each of those are, there is not much point in asking more fool questions.
>> 
>>> Which package breaks what others? Which order of \usepackages works and which doesn't? When do I use XeTeX? Which bits of LaTeX survive the transplant? Which don't? How do I use unicode-math? Why should I? When should I start again with LuaTeX?
>> 
>> Nobody can give a definitive answer to all these questions. For the moment, if pdflatex works for you, stick with it. For me, I can't reliably switch to anything else until OTF math and microtypography work as expected.
> 
> I suspect that is not an uncommon answer. I'll give up if I can't get OTF working well enough for what I want to do. I gave up on TeX twice before because of my arrogant view of its font shortcomings.
>> 
>>> But I sure could use something that gives the beginner an overview. Maybe which topics in which documents for producing documents of type x. It is well covered for academic work already. Yet how do I do fine typesetting for books and magazine articles with lots of external illustrations, stored in paths and files with unicode and punctuation in their names? How do I impose signatures of small pages on large sheets, and which packages break when I try it?
>> 
>> By not using LaTeX. Until there is a stable, modern foundation (LuaTeX plus an appropriate kernel), I wouldn't recommend LaTeX for many things outside the world of writing academic papers and theses. Mose people interested in design and typography use InDesign or QuarkXPress, and ConTeXt might be an option, too.
> 
> I have already given up on InDesign. It is OK for less than 20 pages when you care more about the look than you do about the content. The idea of sending $1000 to Adobe every two years to get bug fixes and a bunch of features I don't want gets old pretty quickly.
> 
> Elliott Roper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
>  http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex