A minor documentation bug: The PDF documentation for the package, generated from unicode-math.dtx and available to users using texdoc, still describes itself as ‘Experimental Unicode mathematical typesetting’, and stresses experimental again in the introduction. However the package's CTAN page doesn't suggest anything experimental about the package, and the GitHub page goes no further than saying the author is ‘a little wary of encouraging people to use this package for production work’.
Given the latter, the documentation's announcement of itself as ‘experimental’ seems to be selling itself short, and is at least a little confusing. While I appreciate and applaud the instinct for caution, or modesty, and wouldn't want to hurry the authors towards a premature declaration of completeness, it would be less confusing if any residual... beta-ness (?) of the package were described in a different way, especially – and I think this might be the key point – since there doesn't seem to be any other reasonable way of including the same font support.
‘Provisional’, ‘development’, ‘beta’ or ‘release candidate’ might be less unexpected ways for the package to characterise what appears to be its real status in practice.
A minor documentation bug: The PDF documentation for the package, generated from
unicode-math.dtxand available to users usingtexdoc, still describes itself as ‘Experimental Unicode mathematical typesetting’, and stresses experimental again in the introduction. However the package's CTAN page doesn't suggest anything experimental about the package, and the GitHub page goes no further than saying the author is ‘a little wary of encouraging people to use this package for production work’.Given the latter, the documentation's announcement of itself as ‘experimental’ seems to be selling itself short, and is at least a little confusing. While I appreciate and applaud the instinct for caution, or modesty, and wouldn't want to hurry the authors towards a premature declaration of completeness, it would be less confusing if any residual... beta-ness (?) of the package were described in a different way, especially – and I think this might be the key point – since there doesn't seem to be any other reasonable way of including the same font support.
‘Provisional’, ‘development’, ‘beta’ or ‘release candidate’ might be less unexpected ways for the package to characterise what appears to be its real status in practice.