4 ms·

> Let's consider the example of TeX OK, let's. Vanilla TeX doesn't support Unicode or OpenType. Thus we have the “modern” engines XeTeX and LuaTeX. XeTeX nati

> Let's consider the example of TeX OK, let's. Vanilla TeX doesn't support Unicode or OpenType. Thus we have the “modern” engines XeTeX and LuaTeX. XeTeX natively reads UTF-8 encoded Unicode input and uses HarfBuzz for OpenType. LuaTeX provides a Lua-based API and TeX primitives for multilingual typesetting. Additional custom behaviors can be created using TeX and Lua code or via plugins written in C/C++. https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/Articles/Unicode https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/Articles/Unicode

arthurcolle 3y ago
Haha I spent so long 3 weeks ago finding a font that would work on XeLaTeX to generate business documents programmatically not a fun endeavor. Yak-shaving at its best (worst?)
- cratermoon 3y ago
  Really? Should work with any OpenType font. Are you generating in a language that doesn't use roman-ish alphabet? You're not wrong that working with TeX can involve a lot of yak shaving in general. Sometimes finding the right template can solve a lot of problems. I use Eisvogel. https://github.com/Wandmalfarbe/pandoc-latex-template https://github.com/Wandmalfarbe/pandoc-latex-template
  - arthurcolle 3y ago
    No this was in English but I needed the math characters, like for example, ≥ I ended up settling on Latin Roman Math (something like that). I needed to use pandoc to convert Markdown files generated dynamically into a PDF that looked reasonably OK. It wasn't great to have to use the Latin Roman * fonts to begin with given audience but at least I found something. Thanks for linking that I'll take a look :)
    - svat 3y ago
      Obviously to use a character you need some font containing that character — this is not specific to XeTeX; it's just that in many other programs this “font fallback” happens silently behind the scenes (will pick up a random font from your system containing that character), while with a typesetting system you need to be more explicit. I wrote a bit about that here: https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/377729 https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/377729
      - cratermoon 3y ago
        The key is that while many fonts have representations for Unicode math points, math symbols and math display are their own things, and typesetting them is not the same as typesetting text. As with musical notation, math typesetting has its own requirements and rules. Knuth created TeX as a way to typeset complex mathematical formulae. TeX has math mode, a completely separate environment. There's more to typesetting it than choosing a font that has the desired symbols.
zogrodea 3y ago
Your comment proves the point by being specific about the improvements that XeTeX and LuaTeX bring, rather than using "modern" (which may simply mean "new") and assuming the reader knows why something new would be better in this case. Edit: Sorry if my comment sounds adversarial. Your comment sounded that way to me, but intended tone doesn't always come across well on the internet. I just wan't sure what the point of your comment was when the topic is about a general point and your comment is about a narrower point (that the specific example cited might be a bad one) which doesn't affect the general point.
- cratermoon 3y ago
  We're still left with the original TeX being unsuitable for the 21st century. Times change, requirements fluctuate, expectations vary. Another area where TeX/LateX have fallen behind: accessibility. It's possible to coerce LaTeX into generating documents usable by the visually impaired, but it's not part of vanilla TeX.
  - zogrodea 3y ago
    I agree with your points about Tex as a specific case (I didn't know about improvement made over time before), but let me see if I am understanding how your comment relates to the general point correctly. Are you saying that "modern" is a fine label because of the hollowing? - Times change - Requirements changes - Expectations change And that, when something is described as "modern" (compared to its "outdated" predecessors), that's because it tries to address changing times? I'm not sure that this is true (I don't know one way or another) when it comes to common usages of the word "modern" as applied to software. I don't think there is any harm in being more precise about what improvements have been made so it's clear to readers/consumers. (My mind doesn't automatically equate "modern" with the things you've listed, and that's likely the case for other people too.)
    - cratermoon 3y ago
      OK, so now you're arguing the meaning of "modern", but perhaps you should refine your original point. Do you have specific examples of incorrect applications of the label "modern"? Are you just objecting to vagueness?

arthurcolle 3y ago

Haha I spent so long 3 weeks ago finding a font that would work on XeLaTeX to generate business documents programmatically not a fun endeavor. Yak-shaving at its best (worst?)

cratermoon 3y ago
Really? Should work with any OpenType font. Are you generating in a language that doesn't use roman-ish alphabet? You're not wrong that working with TeX can involve a lot of yak shaving in general. Sometimes finding the right template can solve a lot of problems. I use Eisvogel. https://github.com/Wandmalfarbe/pandoc-latex-template https://github.com/Wandmalfarbe/pandoc-latex-template
- arthurcolle 3y ago
  No this was in English but I needed the math characters, like for example, ≥ I ended up settling on Latin Roman Math (something like that). I needed to use pandoc to convert Markdown files generated dynamically into a PDF that looked reasonably OK. It wasn't great to have to use the Latin Roman * fonts to begin with given audience but at least I found something. Thanks for linking that I'll take a look :)
  - svat 3y ago
    Obviously to use a character you need some font containing that character — this is not specific to XeTeX; it's just that in many other programs this “font fallback” happens silently behind the scenes (will pick up a random font from your system containing that character), while with a typesetting system you need to be more explicit. I wrote a bit about that here: https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/377729 https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/377729
    - cratermoon 3y ago
      The key is that while many fonts have representations for Unicode math points, math symbols and math display are their own things, and typesetting them is not the same as typesetting text. As with musical notation, math typesetting has its own requirements and rules. Knuth created TeX as a way to typeset complex mathematical formulae. TeX has math mode, a completely separate environment. There's more to typesetting it than choosing a font that has the desired symbols.

zogrodea 3y ago

Your comment proves the point by being specific about the improvements that XeTeX and LuaTeX bring, rather than using "modern" (which may simply mean "new") and assuming the reader knows why something new would be better in this case. Edit: Sorry if my comment sounds adversarial. Your comment sounded that way to me, but intended tone doesn't always come across well on the internet. I just wan't sure what the point of your comment was when the topic is about a general point and your comment is about a narrower point (that the specific example cited might be a bad one) which doesn't affect the general point.

cratermoon 3y ago
We're still left with the original TeX being unsuitable for the 21st century. Times change, requirements fluctuate, expectations vary. Another area where TeX/LateX have fallen behind: accessibility. It's possible to coerce LaTeX into generating documents usable by the visually impaired, but it's not part of vanilla TeX.
- zogrodea 3y ago
  I agree with your points about Tex as a specific case (I didn't know about improvement made over time before), but let me see if I am understanding how your comment relates to the general point correctly. Are you saying that "modern" is a fine label because of the hollowing? - Times change - Requirements changes - Expectations change And that, when something is described as "modern" (compared to its "outdated" predecessors), that's because it tries to address changing times? I'm not sure that this is true (I don't know one way or another) when it comes to common usages of the word "modern" as applied to software. I don't think there is any harm in being more precise about what improvements have been made so it's clear to readers/consumers. (My mind doesn't automatically equate "modern" with the things you've listed, and that's likely the case for other people too.)
  - cratermoon 3y ago
    OK, so now you're arguing the meaning of "modern", but perhaps you should refine your original point. Do you have specific examples of incorrect applications of the label "modern"? Are you just objecting to vagueness?