[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LaTeX export: when is it more useful to use LuaTeX instead of pdfTeX

From: Juan Manuel Macías
Subject: Re: LaTeX export: when is it more useful to use LuaTeX instead of pdfTeX?
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2022 10:42:23 +0000

Hi, Maxim,

Max Nikulin writes:

> [...] With LuaTeX you get more convenient OTF and TTF font selection, but
> you you have to pay for the feature. It is necessary to explicitly
> specify all families: normal, typewriter, italics, etc if you need
> Unicode. -

Not necessarily. You can go from the simplest or basic to the most
complex, depending on the user's needs. If the user does not need to
write in non-Latin scripts, and is not particularly interested in fonts
and otf esoteric features, then the otf version of the Computer Modern
font (which LuaTeX uses by default) will suffice, as this font has
coverage for latin, latin-1, latin-extended, etc.

If you need to fine-tune fonts or work with non latin scripts, then it
is necessary to load fontspec. But equally here you can go from the most
basic to the most complex fontspec options and features, depending on
the needs of the user.

For example, if you want to write an article in both Russian (main
language) and English, and want to use the Old Standard font (which has
excellent coverage for Cyrillic), the basics might be:

\setmainfont{Old Standard}

or, using the Babel style (which requires fontspec in the background):

\babelfont{rm}{Old Standard}

That would be the classic setup. Another example, here with modern Babel
notation: an article in Spanish with the secondary language in ancient
Greek. We want to use Linux Libertine as the main font, and for
Greek Old Standard:

\babelprovide[onchar=ids fonts,hyphenrules=ancientgreek]{greek}
\babelfont{rm}{Linux Libertine O}
\babelfont[greek]{rm}{Old Standard}

That would be the most basic. And, from there, everything can be made
more complex, according to the needs.

> There is babel LaTeX package. A decade ago polyglossia was
> a replacement of babel for XeTeX and LuaTex, but currently babel is
> recommended for these LaTeX engines as well.

That's correct. Babel is strongly recommended, and development of Babel is
very active.

A few months ago I proposed this patch here to adapt Org to the new
scenario regarding Babel and Polyglossia. It is a first approximation
and I have to review it. But the idea is to unify in a single list
(named `org-latex-language-alist' `org-latex-polyglossia-language-alist'
and `org-latex-babel-language-alist':


Best regards,

Juan Manuel 

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]