On 06/03/2011 17:18, Arno Trautmann wrote:
>> $ latex3 --dvi --pdftex <file>
>> $ latex3 --pdf --luatex <file>
>
> I find this horrible. It would be easy if the standard engine would be
> luaTeX with pdf output and other machines could be used as pdflatex3 or
> similar.
I guess my problem is the number of combinations:
- ???latex3 (pdfTeX + LaTeX3 format - but if you
want to be able to alter the default engine then
just "latex3" is out)
- pdflatex3
- xelatex3
- lualatex3
- dvilualatex3
For experienced users that is fine, but for inexperienced users it's not
so fine. (I guess I prefer to keep the engine, output type and format
separate.)
>> an so forth (with --xetex ignoring --dvi for the obvious reasons). Does
>> a similar scheme make sense for a hypothetical 'latex2x'? (I'm going
>> with 'x' for 'extended', and also for 'like LaTeX2e, but clearly a bit
>> further along. Of course, there would need to be some defaults for the
>> above - I guess I'd favour pdfTeX in PDF mode at present.
>
> For l2x (I like the name!), I'd stick with the names as they are.
Makes sense, I suppose, although in many ways I would like to at least
have the output mode separate from the name
pdflatex2x pdfTeX, PDF output
xelatex2x XeTeX, PDF output
lualatex2x LuaTeX, PDF output
with a --dvi(mode) switch
>> Second question: anything else that should be included that is not in
>> the combined 'release' material (expl3, xparse, xtemplate, xcoffins)?
>> These do load various bits and pieces (for example, graphicx), but I'd
>> like to at least add fixltx2e to the above.
>
> As Philipp suggested, fontspec for luaTeX and XeTeX engines. Maybe even
> xltxtra for XeTeX and some lua packages for luaTeX? But that is no
> LaTeX3 stuff anymore …
Well, fixltx2e is not either, but I'd want to include it. As I've said,
we already load some support packages with LuaTeX at least.
--
Joseph Wright
|