Decide between Polyglossia and Babel for LuaLaTeX in 2019
Which are the key questions one has to ask to decide between Polyglossia and Babel for a LuaLaTeX project in 2019?
There has been a similar, more general question in 2012, but the packages have changed a lot in the meantime. Hence I open a new, more specific question.
Can we reduce it to a check list like
Use package A, if you need
- utf-8 characters
- right to left support
Use package B, if you need
- package foo, because A breaks foo
luatex babel polyglossia incompatibility comparison
|
show 6 more comments
Which are the key questions one has to ask to decide between Polyglossia and Babel for a LuaLaTeX project in 2019?
There has been a similar, more general question in 2012, but the packages have changed a lot in the meantime. Hence I open a new, more specific question.
Can we reduce it to a check list like
Use package A, if you need
- utf-8 characters
- right to left support
Use package B, if you need
- package foo, because A breaks foo
luatex babel polyglossia incompatibility comparison
1
Would you be OK with expanding the question to XeLaTeX as well, so this question is truly a more modern version of the other one or do you think it would be more useful to have a separate XeLaTeX question (I don't know if there are relevant differences between the two, but I thinkbabel
's new RTL support works better for LuaLaTeX than XeLaTeX, though I could be completely wrong.)
– moewe
Mar 31 at 10:22
1
For packages likecsquotes
andbiblatex
, but also some others like ctan.org/pkg/tracklang and packages using itpolyglossia
has the disadvantage that it does not expose language variants in a way that can be picked up easily by those packages. That means that there are some rough edges with dialect forms (english
,british
,american
;ngerman
,german
,naustrian
, ...). See for example tex.stackexchange.com/q/432347/35864. Most of those packages won't exactly break withpolyglossia
, but they work better/smoother withbabel
.
– moewe
Mar 31 at 10:27
2
I don't think there is any reason to usepolyglossia
overbabel
forlualatex
.
– David Purton
Mar 31 at 10:33
1
@JonasStein why would you think that? There are still many scripts that luatex does not support.
– David Carlisle
Mar 31 at 11:35
2
@Davislor It's even worse --defaultfontfeatures
is ignored altogether. This is a bug, already fixed on the repository. I'll upload the new version to CTAN very likely tomorrow.
– Javier Bezos
Mar 31 at 17:48
|
show 6 more comments
Which are the key questions one has to ask to decide between Polyglossia and Babel for a LuaLaTeX project in 2019?
There has been a similar, more general question in 2012, but the packages have changed a lot in the meantime. Hence I open a new, more specific question.
Can we reduce it to a check list like
Use package A, if you need
- utf-8 characters
- right to left support
Use package B, if you need
- package foo, because A breaks foo
luatex babel polyglossia incompatibility comparison
Which are the key questions one has to ask to decide between Polyglossia and Babel for a LuaLaTeX project in 2019?
There has been a similar, more general question in 2012, but the packages have changed a lot in the meantime. Hence I open a new, more specific question.
Can we reduce it to a check list like
Use package A, if you need
- utf-8 characters
- right to left support
Use package B, if you need
- package foo, because A breaks foo
luatex babel polyglossia incompatibility comparison
luatex babel polyglossia incompatibility comparison
asked Mar 31 at 10:13
Jonas SteinJonas Stein
3,34042746
3,34042746
1
Would you be OK with expanding the question to XeLaTeX as well, so this question is truly a more modern version of the other one or do you think it would be more useful to have a separate XeLaTeX question (I don't know if there are relevant differences between the two, but I thinkbabel
's new RTL support works better for LuaLaTeX than XeLaTeX, though I could be completely wrong.)
– moewe
Mar 31 at 10:22
1
For packages likecsquotes
andbiblatex
, but also some others like ctan.org/pkg/tracklang and packages using itpolyglossia
has the disadvantage that it does not expose language variants in a way that can be picked up easily by those packages. That means that there are some rough edges with dialect forms (english
,british
,american
;ngerman
,german
,naustrian
, ...). See for example tex.stackexchange.com/q/432347/35864. Most of those packages won't exactly break withpolyglossia
, but they work better/smoother withbabel
.
– moewe
Mar 31 at 10:27
2
I don't think there is any reason to usepolyglossia
overbabel
forlualatex
.
– David Purton
Mar 31 at 10:33
1
@JonasStein why would you think that? There are still many scripts that luatex does not support.
– David Carlisle
Mar 31 at 11:35
2
@Davislor It's even worse --defaultfontfeatures
is ignored altogether. This is a bug, already fixed on the repository. I'll upload the new version to CTAN very likely tomorrow.
– Javier Bezos
Mar 31 at 17:48
|
show 6 more comments
1
Would you be OK with expanding the question to XeLaTeX as well, so this question is truly a more modern version of the other one or do you think it would be more useful to have a separate XeLaTeX question (I don't know if there are relevant differences between the two, but I thinkbabel
's new RTL support works better for LuaLaTeX than XeLaTeX, though I could be completely wrong.)
– moewe
Mar 31 at 10:22
1
For packages likecsquotes
andbiblatex
, but also some others like ctan.org/pkg/tracklang and packages using itpolyglossia
has the disadvantage that it does not expose language variants in a way that can be picked up easily by those packages. That means that there are some rough edges with dialect forms (english
,british
,american
;ngerman
,german
,naustrian
, ...). See for example tex.stackexchange.com/q/432347/35864. Most of those packages won't exactly break withpolyglossia
, but they work better/smoother withbabel
.
– moewe
Mar 31 at 10:27
2
I don't think there is any reason to usepolyglossia
overbabel
forlualatex
.
– David Purton
Mar 31 at 10:33
1
@JonasStein why would you think that? There are still many scripts that luatex does not support.
– David Carlisle
Mar 31 at 11:35
2
@Davislor It's even worse --defaultfontfeatures
is ignored altogether. This is a bug, already fixed on the repository. I'll upload the new version to CTAN very likely tomorrow.
– Javier Bezos
Mar 31 at 17:48
1
1
Would you be OK with expanding the question to XeLaTeX as well, so this question is truly a more modern version of the other one or do you think it would be more useful to have a separate XeLaTeX question (I don't know if there are relevant differences between the two, but I think
babel
's new RTL support works better for LuaLaTeX than XeLaTeX, though I could be completely wrong.)– moewe
Mar 31 at 10:22
Would you be OK with expanding the question to XeLaTeX as well, so this question is truly a more modern version of the other one or do you think it would be more useful to have a separate XeLaTeX question (I don't know if there are relevant differences between the two, but I think
babel
's new RTL support works better for LuaLaTeX than XeLaTeX, though I could be completely wrong.)– moewe
Mar 31 at 10:22
1
1
For packages like
csquotes
and biblatex
, but also some others like ctan.org/pkg/tracklang and packages using it polyglossia
has the disadvantage that it does not expose language variants in a way that can be picked up easily by those packages. That means that there are some rough edges with dialect forms (english
, british
, american
; ngerman
, german
, naustrian
, ...). See for example tex.stackexchange.com/q/432347/35864. Most of those packages won't exactly break with polyglossia
, but they work better/smoother with babel
.– moewe
Mar 31 at 10:27
For packages like
csquotes
and biblatex
, but also some others like ctan.org/pkg/tracklang and packages using it polyglossia
has the disadvantage that it does not expose language variants in a way that can be picked up easily by those packages. That means that there are some rough edges with dialect forms (english
, british
, american
; ngerman
, german
, naustrian
, ...). See for example tex.stackexchange.com/q/432347/35864. Most of those packages won't exactly break with polyglossia
, but they work better/smoother with babel
.– moewe
Mar 31 at 10:27
2
2
I don't think there is any reason to use
polyglossia
over babel
for lualatex
.– David Purton
Mar 31 at 10:33
I don't think there is any reason to use
polyglossia
over babel
for lualatex
.– David Purton
Mar 31 at 10:33
1
1
@JonasStein why would you think that? There are still many scripts that luatex does not support.
– David Carlisle
Mar 31 at 11:35
@JonasStein why would you think that? There are still many scripts that luatex does not support.
– David Carlisle
Mar 31 at 11:35
2
2
@Davislor It's even worse --
defaultfontfeatures
is ignored altogether. This is a bug, already fixed on the repository. I'll upload the new version to CTAN very likely tomorrow.– Javier Bezos
Mar 31 at 17:48
@Davislor It's even worse --
defaultfontfeatures
is ignored altogether. This is a bug, already fixed on the repository. I'll upload the new version to CTAN very likely tomorrow.– Javier Bezos
Mar 31 at 17:48
|
show 6 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Here's some reasons why I prefer babel
over polyglossia
for lualatex
.
babel
's base is part of the LaTeX core packages actively developed, butpoyglossia
is only getting a few minor updates.
babel
's RTL and BiDi support is really nice forlualatex
now. Butpolyglossia
only supports RTL text withxelatex
.
babel
's newini
system for setting up languages is very neat and I think will improve rapidly. It also makes it easy to add new languages and update existing languages.
babel
's font support is easier to use to set up standard families for different languages, whereaspolyglossia
basically just uses standardfontspec
calls.- For standard European languages
babel
's support is very mature.
polyglossia
's language variants do not work well withbiblatex
orcsquotes
.
You might choose polyglossia
if you want to write a RTL only document with xelatex
, as the bidi
package has been around for a long time. But if the main document language is LTR, I wouldn't do this now as babel
and lualatex
is better and involves less hacks and workarounds. You might also choose to use polyglossia
with xelatex
if you need certain complex scripts that lualatex
still does not handle well. But none of these reasons justify choosing polyglossia
over babel
if you have already decided to use lualatex
.
add a comment |
There are 79 language definition files (gloss-XX) in the polyglossia
folder. For a thorough comparision you would have to compare for every language how good the gloss-file is, if it works with lualatex, if babel
provide definitions for this language too and how good it works with lualatex. And naturally you also need to check if babel knows language which polyglossia
doesn't have. That's a lot work which I won't do (but it is known that the french module is clearly better in babel).
For all language relevant to me I prefer today babel over polyglossia. Even more if I use lualatex as babel has more lualatex specific code (polyglossia has been developed with xelatex in mind).
babel
is better maintained and its interface for other packages which need language support (biblatex
) is better.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "85"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f482396%2fdecide-between-polyglossia-and-babel-for-lualatex-in-2019%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Here's some reasons why I prefer babel
over polyglossia
for lualatex
.
babel
's base is part of the LaTeX core packages actively developed, butpoyglossia
is only getting a few minor updates.
babel
's RTL and BiDi support is really nice forlualatex
now. Butpolyglossia
only supports RTL text withxelatex
.
babel
's newini
system for setting up languages is very neat and I think will improve rapidly. It also makes it easy to add new languages and update existing languages.
babel
's font support is easier to use to set up standard families for different languages, whereaspolyglossia
basically just uses standardfontspec
calls.- For standard European languages
babel
's support is very mature.
polyglossia
's language variants do not work well withbiblatex
orcsquotes
.
You might choose polyglossia
if you want to write a RTL only document with xelatex
, as the bidi
package has been around for a long time. But if the main document language is LTR, I wouldn't do this now as babel
and lualatex
is better and involves less hacks and workarounds. You might also choose to use polyglossia
with xelatex
if you need certain complex scripts that lualatex
still does not handle well. But none of these reasons justify choosing polyglossia
over babel
if you have already decided to use lualatex
.
add a comment |
Here's some reasons why I prefer babel
over polyglossia
for lualatex
.
babel
's base is part of the LaTeX core packages actively developed, butpoyglossia
is only getting a few minor updates.
babel
's RTL and BiDi support is really nice forlualatex
now. Butpolyglossia
only supports RTL text withxelatex
.
babel
's newini
system for setting up languages is very neat and I think will improve rapidly. It also makes it easy to add new languages and update existing languages.
babel
's font support is easier to use to set up standard families for different languages, whereaspolyglossia
basically just uses standardfontspec
calls.- For standard European languages
babel
's support is very mature.
polyglossia
's language variants do not work well withbiblatex
orcsquotes
.
You might choose polyglossia
if you want to write a RTL only document with xelatex
, as the bidi
package has been around for a long time. But if the main document language is LTR, I wouldn't do this now as babel
and lualatex
is better and involves less hacks and workarounds. You might also choose to use polyglossia
with xelatex
if you need certain complex scripts that lualatex
still does not handle well. But none of these reasons justify choosing polyglossia
over babel
if you have already decided to use lualatex
.
add a comment |
Here's some reasons why I prefer babel
over polyglossia
for lualatex
.
babel
's base is part of the LaTeX core packages actively developed, butpoyglossia
is only getting a few minor updates.
babel
's RTL and BiDi support is really nice forlualatex
now. Butpolyglossia
only supports RTL text withxelatex
.
babel
's newini
system for setting up languages is very neat and I think will improve rapidly. It also makes it easy to add new languages and update existing languages.
babel
's font support is easier to use to set up standard families for different languages, whereaspolyglossia
basically just uses standardfontspec
calls.- For standard European languages
babel
's support is very mature.
polyglossia
's language variants do not work well withbiblatex
orcsquotes
.
You might choose polyglossia
if you want to write a RTL only document with xelatex
, as the bidi
package has been around for a long time. But if the main document language is LTR, I wouldn't do this now as babel
and lualatex
is better and involves less hacks and workarounds. You might also choose to use polyglossia
with xelatex
if you need certain complex scripts that lualatex
still does not handle well. But none of these reasons justify choosing polyglossia
over babel
if you have already decided to use lualatex
.
Here's some reasons why I prefer babel
over polyglossia
for lualatex
.
babel
's base is part of the LaTeX core packages actively developed, butpoyglossia
is only getting a few minor updates.
babel
's RTL and BiDi support is really nice forlualatex
now. Butpolyglossia
only supports RTL text withxelatex
.
babel
's newini
system for setting up languages is very neat and I think will improve rapidly. It also makes it easy to add new languages and update existing languages.
babel
's font support is easier to use to set up standard families for different languages, whereaspolyglossia
basically just uses standardfontspec
calls.- For standard European languages
babel
's support is very mature.
polyglossia
's language variants do not work well withbiblatex
orcsquotes
.
You might choose polyglossia
if you want to write a RTL only document with xelatex
, as the bidi
package has been around for a long time. But if the main document language is LTR, I wouldn't do this now as babel
and lualatex
is better and involves less hacks and workarounds. You might also choose to use polyglossia
with xelatex
if you need certain complex scripts that lualatex
still does not handle well. But none of these reasons justify choosing polyglossia
over babel
if you have already decided to use lualatex
.
answered Mar 31 at 11:15
David PurtonDavid Purton
11.2k2944
11.2k2944
add a comment |
add a comment |
There are 79 language definition files (gloss-XX) in the polyglossia
folder. For a thorough comparision you would have to compare for every language how good the gloss-file is, if it works with lualatex, if babel
provide definitions for this language too and how good it works with lualatex. And naturally you also need to check if babel knows language which polyglossia
doesn't have. That's a lot work which I won't do (but it is known that the french module is clearly better in babel).
For all language relevant to me I prefer today babel over polyglossia. Even more if I use lualatex as babel has more lualatex specific code (polyglossia has been developed with xelatex in mind).
babel
is better maintained and its interface for other packages which need language support (biblatex
) is better.
add a comment |
There are 79 language definition files (gloss-XX) in the polyglossia
folder. For a thorough comparision you would have to compare for every language how good the gloss-file is, if it works with lualatex, if babel
provide definitions for this language too and how good it works with lualatex. And naturally you also need to check if babel knows language which polyglossia
doesn't have. That's a lot work which I won't do (but it is known that the french module is clearly better in babel).
For all language relevant to me I prefer today babel over polyglossia. Even more if I use lualatex as babel has more lualatex specific code (polyglossia has been developed with xelatex in mind).
babel
is better maintained and its interface for other packages which need language support (biblatex
) is better.
add a comment |
There are 79 language definition files (gloss-XX) in the polyglossia
folder. For a thorough comparision you would have to compare for every language how good the gloss-file is, if it works with lualatex, if babel
provide definitions for this language too and how good it works with lualatex. And naturally you also need to check if babel knows language which polyglossia
doesn't have. That's a lot work which I won't do (but it is known that the french module is clearly better in babel).
For all language relevant to me I prefer today babel over polyglossia. Even more if I use lualatex as babel has more lualatex specific code (polyglossia has been developed with xelatex in mind).
babel
is better maintained and its interface for other packages which need language support (biblatex
) is better.
There are 79 language definition files (gloss-XX) in the polyglossia
folder. For a thorough comparision you would have to compare for every language how good the gloss-file is, if it works with lualatex, if babel
provide definitions for this language too and how good it works with lualatex. And naturally you also need to check if babel knows language which polyglossia
doesn't have. That's a lot work which I won't do (but it is known that the french module is clearly better in babel).
For all language relevant to me I prefer today babel over polyglossia. Even more if I use lualatex as babel has more lualatex specific code (polyglossia has been developed with xelatex in mind).
babel
is better maintained and its interface for other packages which need language support (biblatex
) is better.
answered Mar 31 at 10:33
Ulrike FischerUlrike Fischer
198k9306692
198k9306692
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f482396%2fdecide-between-polyglossia-and-babel-for-lualatex-in-2019%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Would you be OK with expanding the question to XeLaTeX as well, so this question is truly a more modern version of the other one or do you think it would be more useful to have a separate XeLaTeX question (I don't know if there are relevant differences between the two, but I think
babel
's new RTL support works better for LuaLaTeX than XeLaTeX, though I could be completely wrong.)– moewe
Mar 31 at 10:22
1
For packages like
csquotes
andbiblatex
, but also some others like ctan.org/pkg/tracklang and packages using itpolyglossia
has the disadvantage that it does not expose language variants in a way that can be picked up easily by those packages. That means that there are some rough edges with dialect forms (english
,british
,american
;ngerman
,german
,naustrian
, ...). See for example tex.stackexchange.com/q/432347/35864. Most of those packages won't exactly break withpolyglossia
, but they work better/smoother withbabel
.– moewe
Mar 31 at 10:27
2
I don't think there is any reason to use
polyglossia
overbabel
forlualatex
.– David Purton
Mar 31 at 10:33
1
@JonasStein why would you think that? There are still many scripts that luatex does not support.
– David Carlisle
Mar 31 at 11:35
2
@Davislor It's even worse --
defaultfontfeatures
is ignored altogether. This is a bug, already fixed on the repository. I'll upload the new version to CTAN very likely tomorrow.– Javier Bezos
Mar 31 at 17:48