[texworks] XeLaTeX Typsetting tool

Paul A Norman paul.a.norman at gmail.com
Sun Jul 17 08:57:11 CEST 2011

> (n.b. When an OpenSource package based on a ttf or .otf is used
>  through say MikTeX - the actual fonts themselves are put in your TXMF
> tree as well, if you need them for things like drawing applications.

P.S. If you need a .otf .ttf font that *LaTeX has previously installed
(it is not in your c:\windws\font for example) use this from say a
MikTeX command prompt.

kpsewhich -show-path=.otf

kpsewhich -show-path=.ttf

Will point you to parent folders where the font should be in a
subfolder somewhere underneath.

If you have previously installed a font package based on .ttf or .otf
and know your actual font name use say...

kpsewhich GFSArtemisiaBoldItalic.otf

And you'll get the direct path if your package handler does know about it.

In my case ...

G:/LaTeXPortable/LatexUtils/MiTeX 2.8

Or you can locate the font package itself if documentation is scarce
on the detail you need (like font abbreviation) and you know its name.

kpsewhich gfsArtemisia.sty

G:/LaTeXPortable/LatexUtils/MiTeX 2.8

Anyone know of other tools?


On 17 July 2011 14:57, Paul A Norman <paul.a.norman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for that everyone,
> In the back of my mind is one of the original ideals of the TeX LaTeX
> stable, of being able to re-open a document any where at any future
> time, and typeset it accurately again.
> With faithful future re-typesetting,  fonts and font treatment are now
> going to be more a major part of the picture than before, when there
> was once only initially perhaps just Computer Modern and a hand full
> of fonts to focus on, and eventually all centrally archived on (CTAN).
> With time often being more precious than funding, I am canvassing
> these things knowing that they affect many other  people as well.
> We have talked on the TeXworks list about project management in Tw,
> which is also a key for distributed work, and one of the 'big' issues
> I have been already facing on current projects, is font management in
> that context.
> Where I am, right now we are seeking to plan our work ahead, and face
> these typesetting engine issues quite strongly.
> So, a) which engine to be planning to be using right now and forward,
> and b) with the new flexabilites---keeping tabs on projects' fonts;
> are what we are working through at the moment--as no doubt others with
> long term work loads will be doing so as well --or might start to
> through these sorts of  discussions :-)
> It must be flagged up front that there are real non-technical issues
> with the development of the use of what might be called free standing
> fonts (.ttf .otf) installed on a User's system. One is that a User
> later may not be aware which purchase they made (or free download) put
> that font there, and should they move to another system/machine may
> not think ahead that it would need to be sorted out (they might not
> even think about its real name!)- unlike the current state of affairs
> in the LaTeX world where if you are making documents based only on
> CTAN available font packages, relocating a font will probably NEVER be
> an issue.
> Obviously this all has a few implications for aspects of TeXworks
> editor developments as well, hence talking about it broadly here, but
> will jump over to  TeX Stackexchange for more specific matters.
> With Tw  if we are heading for more 'use any font on your system'
> typesetting engines, a means of dropping those font names into the
> editor would be more than useful for a typesetting editor User. I have
> one in script prototyping at the moment, but an actual solution may
> need to be mainlined. It might need to include a reference in a
> %comment to the actual .ttf or .otf name and even original location,
> for when the User changes/upgrades system or gets a new computer (I
> have found the package fontools helpful, but if you go over to the
> contributing authors' site  http://www.lcdf.org/type/ there are more
> up to date and extensive utilities available including "otfinfo -i
> dahdah.ttf dahDah.otf" it's invaluable in this regard e.g.
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13401476/TeXworks/TeXworks_otfinfo.jpg ).
> Paths Forward:
> As things have been, General TeX fonts, via LaTeX .fd etc, are
> obviously freely available and as everyone knows  under a MikTeX type
> distribution, able to be even automatically downloaded when referenced
> as packages, and once on a system, can be used through their
> abbreviated names casually in a document.
> So far in using these there has been no problematic font management
> issue for either collaborative work, or reopening archives of projects
> later (CTAN again).
> (n.b. When an OpenSource package based on a ttf or .otf is used
> through say MikTeX - the actual fonts themselves are put in your TXMF
> tree as well, if you need them for things like drawing applications.
> I'm on MikTeX and there under /fonts/type1/ (don't ask me!) and
> /fonts/opentype/ you'll likely find subdirectories with .otf  and some
> .ttf in them. Some ttf sometimes in /fonts/tfm/public/ sub directories
> )
> Generally it was felt in the LaTeX world that a .sty should provide
> your documents  font shapes, so my recent `Quote of the week?'.
> ``Gleaned from a user group ...
> ``>Re: HowTo use TTF-font with LaTeX
> ``> "Sorry, but with this I would have to ask why you want to do this.
> ``> "There should be no need to use other fonts with LaTeX except its
> default ones.
> ``> "Its not there for you to customise the layout and fonts, that has
> been done for you, that its point.
> Now there is a growing acceptance that specific departure form a
> document main font .sty and more active robust choices, including
> smart fonts, are a valid part of typesetting the wide range of
> documents that *TeX is being coaxed to cater for (for example see
> LaTeX magazine and newspaper assistance under Nicola Talbot's flowfram
> and jpgfdraw contributions http://theoval.cmp.uea.ac.uk/~nlct/latex/).
> However in achieving that, .otf and .ttf, and especially those that
> are not on an open license, pose different project management issues.
> Depending heavily upon license and your legal jurisdiction's
> requirements, for internal use - non-Open licensed versions can
> sometimes be temporarily utilised by 'team members' for a specific
> project's preparation, but only for the purposes of the preparation of
> that project (in some jurisdictions the argument is similar to when a
> printing bureau automatically requires that the fonts accompany the
> project for printing - even though in reality with embedding that
> would seem to serve no practical purpose). However some licenses/or
> jurisdictions are more restrictive.
> In terms of project management (and its development in TeXworks)...
> 1. When licensed under Open conditions, otf and ttf fonts should
> obviously always accompany the project (in case they are not on the
> recipient team member's system) - and in any event should always be
> included for archiving with/in the project.
> Do either LuaTeX or XeLaTeX allow utilising  font(s) for use from a
> nominated project directory? Is there a files path type situation as
> with \insertgraphics - \graphicspath{} ?
> 2. I have seen packages in the past for LaTeX (can't think of one
> right now) that will gather up all the files used in a LaTeX project,
> is there anything in LuaTeX and XeLaTeX that will accomplish that for
> .ttf .otf fonts as well especially if the project is only relying on
> fonts that are installed by the system i.e. are not in a project
> directory but say c:\windows\fonts.
> --If not/or even if so, is that something we c/should engineer in
> total or in part form TeXworks as a part of project management?
> I have been looking at packages and development projects that will
> assist in setting up .otf and .ttf for LaTeX under its current font
> setup, while even exposing and making available additional (some
> only?) .otf features. For example autoinst.pl with the already
> mentioned otftotfm. And  have protyped a Tw Scripted interface to help
> use those utlities.
> So the open question for many of us Users is what to base new or move
> current Tw editing projects to?
> a) Do the extra work on a font by font basis using tools like
> autoinst.pl and otftotfm, and stick with pdfLaTeX for now trusting to
> integrate smoothly into LuaTex (as LuaLaTeX in a sense?) or ...
> b) As LuaTex is not yet ready, go over to XeLaTeX and so have easy
> integration of any font on the system, have to change present on-going
> projects to use the new necessary fonting instructions?
> LuaTex is official, yet as has already been pointed out, XeLaTeX seems
> to have more activity and present backing.
> Both paths will involve work for anyone facing this dilemma who's
> needing (for any of many reasons) to use fonts that are not currently
> available as TeX packages on CTAN, and which may never be so.
> With XeLaTeX's  indirect route to .pdf generation (and knowledge that
> package-wise on LaTeX I need to go directly to .pdf not via .dvi), I
> tend to presently lean towards being conservative, and stick with, for
> the moment, getting necessary fonts into LateX (autoinst and otftotfm
> route), and wait for the official route to LuaTeX (with more eventual
> features than XeLaTeX) to open up more fully, trusting that fonts
> introduced to LaTeX (tfm-s) and packages will still always work under
> LuaTex?
> Or should people jump on XeLaTeX hoping it won't become non-developed
> in the future if LuaTeX does find centre stage (especially as it has
> integrated the fontspec package)?
> Or will there be a future high degree of compatibility of documents
> prepared for XeLaTeX to fit in under LuaTeX?  fontspec package wise -
> sort of convergence I alluded to in an earlier posting?
> Or are XeLaTeX and LuaTex to be seen into the future as having a
> common (La)TeX basis, but as being two completely unconnected entities
> as far as even future document preparation/editing goes?
> I am trying to realise the early TeX LaTeX goal for safe reopening and
> future re-typesetting of documents, as we go into the future, but I
> also want .otf anf .ttf,  but it appears that the Xe(La)TeX /
> Lua(La)TeX future is not yet as clearly identifiable as you naturally
> feel you would like it to be, and I might have to continue converting
> .ttf and .otf to .tfm?
> Any one come up with a clear and 'safe' thought out approach yet?
> Paul

More information about the texworks mailing list