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
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)
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
>> 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.