Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> Hi all,
> (Élie, I'm going to repeat here mostly what I said in fctt, expanding a bit.)
> Elie Roux a écrit :
>> I'm the developer of luainputenc (inputenc adapted for LuaTeX). Sorry
>> to come back to this topic, but I think an answer to Will's question
>> would be necessary soon... inputenc needs adjustments in order to
>> work with LuaTeX and XeTeX.
> 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.
My personal opinion is that there should be either an inputenc.sty or
default definition files in the load path of lualatex (or whatever it is
called). I see one problem with TeXlive/kpathsea: it is quite
conceivable that people want to have the command "latex" refer to
lualatex by default, and this should imply the lualatex search paths. I
don't think this is easy to set up at the current point of time.
However, with regard to the LaTeX team, I think that it would be in
order if we sanctioned the use of the "inputenc.sty" moniker for
particular lualatex/xelatex specific trees in TeX distributions. Even
if we decide that it does not make sense for the LaTeX team to drive and
maintain their development and employment.
> 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.