David Kastrup a écrit :
>> I'm sorry but I disagree on this point. I don't think it is urgent to
>> adjust the real inputenc. LuaTeX is still in early beta, so it should
>> be used only by somehow experienced users, or at least users aware of
>> what they are doing.. Such users should be able to understand that
>> they should either encode their source in utf-8 (and don't load any
>> inputenc) or load luainputenc.
> 
> I disagree.  The development or rather the update cycle of LaTeX is so
> slow that we don't want it to impede progress.
> 
No one (at least not me) wants to impede progress. luainputenc and xetexinputenc
are interesting and I'm glad they are being developed. The question is: Would it
 be a real progress to have them called 'inputenc' (by whatever mechanism such
as kpse search path or something like Élie's suggestion)?

In the current state of the packages, I don't think it would be a progress to
change the name to inputenc. And I also think there's no need to hurry deciding
whether it is a progress or not.

>> A important point is, people need to know the difference between what
>> is stable and what isn't. They expect core packages maintained by the
>> LaTeX team to be stable and work in a 100% compatible way. This
>> expectation should be satisfied.
> 
> I don't see how this expectation would be violated by extensions only
> triggered by the use of something as experimental as lualatex.
> 
Well, as a user, I usually expect things with the same name to behave the same.
Currently inputenc and luainputenc just don't.

If the user is aware enough of what's going on, she is probably able to
understand that she should use luainputenc instead of inputenc (or, much better,
(re-)encode her source as utf-8 and stop using *inputenc).

Manuel.