Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> David Kastrup a écrit :
>>> I don't mean waiting for three years. I just mean waiting enough to be
>>> able to tidy up problems.
>> 
>> Could you name one such problem affecting non-LuaTeX users?
>> 
> I'm afraid I can't understand you question. luainputenc is meant to be
> used on top of LuaTeX, so every problem with it is for LuaTeX users.

Exactly.

> My point is simply that for various reasons, luainputenc is not (yet)
> a stable drop-in replacement for inputenc, and so should not yet be
> called inputenc.

With that reasoning, inputenc is a completely non-working implementation
of inputenc on LuaTeX and so should not yet be called inputenc.

I don't see the advantage of a non-working stable inputenc in the LuaTeX
namespace over a somewhat working non-stable inputenc.

> Rather, development and testing of luainputenc should continue until
> it becomes possibly ready to be transparently used in most cases. The
> value of "most" is to be evaluated carefully, and if it is large
> enough, then it will make sens to have \usepackage[xxx]{inputenc}
> actually call luainputenc (via whatever mechanism) when running
> LuaTeX.

But it makes even less sense to call the canonical inputenc when running
LuaTeX because it will just break.  So where is the point?

> Obviously, this is just my opinion. I'm sorry I can't express it
> clearly enough, so that some people think I am opposed to progress
> while others see personal attacks where they are not intended. I think
> I'll stop this public discussion here, and continue discussing
> technical issues and their possible solutions in private, since I hope
> a private discussion is more likely to help actually solve real
> problems.

What is the real problem that you solve by having LuaTeX choke on the
original inputenc package?

That it will choke in the same manner 5 years from now?  I just don't
understand what advantages you expect from staying with the status quo.

-- 
David Kastrup