[XeTeX] XeTeX documentation "initiative"

[Alexander Schultheiß]

Without knowing a great deal about all the TeX flavors, I'd like to
point out that a "one documentation for everything and everybody" is
unlikely to get finished and to work out. It will rather confuse
readers, I think. I myself have switched from LaTeX/TeX to XeTeX for
the simple reason that XeTeX can handle ttf/otf fonts without to much
hassle. What I missed was not so much a complete documentation about
XeTeX--which, however, is never a bad thing to have--than more a kind
of a quick start. What is the strength of XeTeX? Which gap does it
fill and how is it solved.

IMO, a XeTeX documentation/manual should not explain what is explained
elsewhere, i.e. it should not explain plain TeX before it goes on to
explain XeTeX. There should probably be a section devoted to other TeX
variants, a chapter with a quick start as described above but in
essence a XeTeX documentation should focus on XeTeX _only_ and what it
adds to TeX (with useful examples). If you want a documentation about
LuaTeX it's up to the LuaTeX project to provide a documentation, isn't
it?

Alex

On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Philipp Stephani <st_philipp at yahoo.de> wrote:
>
> Am 12.09.2010 um 10:22 schrieb Apostolos Syropoulos:
>
>>> greatly diminished. OpenType Math is still in a very early stage in XeTeX and
>>> has so many bugs that it is not ready for production use.
>>
>> I think this is a wrong statement: OpenType Math is by itself in early stage.
>> Only
>> two-three products make use of it.
>
> Maybe, but one of them is MS Word, and it was introduced there three years ago (and development probably started years before that).
>
>>> - Of course ConTeXt mustn't be ignored. ConTeXt Mk  IV, which is based on
>>> LuaTeX,
>>>
>>> seems to have everything that is missing from  LaTeX: a stable, coherent
>>> interface, a well-designed
>>>
>>> architecture that makes  LaTeX-style hacking and package clashes unnecessary,
>>> XML support,
>>>
>>> micro-typography, OpenType math, and much more.
>>
>> Even if this true, why so few people use ConTeXt? IMHO, ConTeXt is more
>> difficult to learn and use
>> than LaTeX. In a final analysis, you cannot force people to use something just
>> because you
>> think it is better. You have to convince them and so far it seems they are not.
>
> I don't use ConTeXt myself that much, largely because of the lack of documentation and my own laziness. Unfortunately many of the documents are outdated and cover the "old" ConTeXt Mk II instead of Mk IV. Also there is peer pressure: Someone willing to use ConTeXt is largely on his/her own, without support from colleagues, because LaTeX is still ubiquitous. After all, LaTeX is good enough for most people, and the rest usually doesn't have the time to become acquainted with a very different systems.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
>  http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>