[XeTeX] XeTeX Digest, Vol 48, Issue 34

Tue Mar 18 04:14:53 CET 2008

CJK & fontspec:
it would be helpful to be able to load a simple package that
typeset the rotated fonts (using fontspec) vertically from
top to bottom, Right to left for Chinese texts.  \rotatebox
is ok for a short section, but typesetting a book with
the top down right left is pretty basic for typesetting in
Chinese. Usage of the packages gezhu, and zhspacing. are not
entirely transparent, and they do not automatically work
with TeXlive and XeLaTeX.

On Mar 17, 2008, at 4:36 PM, xetex-request at tug.org wrote:

> Send XeTeX mailing list submissions to
> 	xetex at tug.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	xetex-request at tug.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	xetex-owner at tug.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of XeTeX digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. CJK & fontspec (Will Robertson)
>   2. Re: embolden bugs (Fran?ois Charette)
>   3. Re: embolden bugs (Will Robertson)
>   4. Re: CJK & fontspec (Wilfred van Rooijen)
>   5. Re: CJK & fontspec (Will Robertson)
>   6. xdv2pdf (was Re:  embolden bugs) (William Adams)
>   7. Re: xdv2pdf (was Re:  embolden bugs) (Jonathan Kew)
>   8. Re: MM fonts (Jonathan Kew)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:19:12 +1030
> From: Will Robertson <wspr81 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [XeTeX] CJK & fontspec
> To: Mailing list <xetex at tug.org>
> Message-ID: <B257D2FF-208E-498A-8566-C15254FB217E at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hello,
>
> Could people who actually do CJK typesetting let me know what features
> they do and do not use in fontspec?
>
> Also, there was a report a while back that the Vertical=RotatedGlyphs
> feature (terrible name, in hindsight) is broken. Is this actually the
> case? A note to myself in the fontspec source from August last year
> claims that I fixed the problem, but I'm a bit confused. It also
> applies the +vrt2 font feature...is this the right thing to do?
>
> For fonts that support the older way of doing vertical typesetting
> (+vert and so on, I believe), should I be detecting them and applying
> a different set of features? This is all doable stuff, but I'm pretty
> out of the loop with all of the CJK development.
>
> Cheers,
> Will
>
> P.S. Should I change the Vertical feature to simply not take an
> argument? This won't break backwards compatibility. But it does
> preclude adding new features in there later...like, I don't know,
> different stuff for Mongolian (or is it Tibetan?) that reads bottom- 
> to-
> top right-to-left or something. (Uh, don't anyone take offence at my
> ignorance. It's past midnight and I'm hammering this out right before
> bed.)
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: smime.p7s
> Type: application/pkcs7-signature
> Size: 2415 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url : http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20080318/dae88395/attachment-0001.bin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:34:32 +0100
> From: Fran?ois Charette <firmicus at ankabut.net>
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] embolden bugs
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
> Message-ID: <47DE8F88.9020501 at ankabut.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Will Robertson a ?crit :
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've run into some bugs with the new embolden font feature (not  
>> that I
>> want to use it, personally, but I understand why it's there).
>>
> Will,
>
> Perhaps you could inaugurate the sourceforge bugtracker with those new
> reports, as suggested by Jonathan a few days ago?
>
>>     http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=194926
>>
>> [...]
>> In particular, whether or not you choose to use the SF.net-hosted
>> wiki space, it'd be great to start using the tracker there to report
>> bugs and request features, rather than just relying on emails here on
>> the list.
> ;-)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:19:36 +1030
> From: Will Robertson <wspr81 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] embolden bugs
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
> Message-ID: <7D1652B8-E1FE-4065-9A27-00B2CDBD7667 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 18/03/2008, at 2:04 AM, Fran?ois Charette wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you could inaugurate the sourceforge bugtracker with those  
>> new
>> reports, as suggested by Jonathan a few days ago?
>>
>>>    http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=194926
>
> Hey, good idea!
>
> :)
>
> Cheers,
> Will
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: smime.p7s
> Type: application/pkcs7-signature
> Size: 2415 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url : http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20080318/ff1baaf4/attachment-0001.bin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Wilfred van Rooijen <wvanrooijen at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] CJK & fontspec
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
> Message-ID: <669568.83505.qm at web65506.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Hey Will,
>
> Yes, I experienced some issues with the vertical
> typesetting of Japanese using the
> 'Vertical=RotatedGlyphs' option (which didn't work). I
> updated to xetex 0.997 and use 'RawFeature=vrt2' or
> something similar (I don't remember 100% and the stuff
> is on another computer to which I don't have access
> temporarily). The situation seems to be that the
> 'Vertical=RotatedGlyphs' option is nor reliable on
> linux, but maybe similarly unreliable on other OS.
>
> If required, I can tell more next week.
>
> Regards,
> Wilfred van Rooijen
>
> --- Will Robertson <wspr81 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Could people who actually do CJK typesetting let me
>> know what features
>> they do and do not use in fontspec?
>>
>> Also, there was a report a while back that the
>> Vertical=RotatedGlyphs
>> feature (terrible name, in hindsight) is broken. Is
>> this actually the
>> case? A note to myself in the fontspec source from
>> August last year
>> claims that I fixed the problem, but I'm a bit
>> confused. It also
>> applies the +vrt2 font feature...is this the right
>> thing to do?
>>
>> For fonts that support the older way of doing
>> vertical typesetting
>> (+vert and so on, I believe), should I be detecting
>> them and applying
>> a different set of features? This is all doable
>> stuff, but I'm pretty
>> out of the loop with all of the CJK development.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Will
>>
>> P.S. Should I change the Vertical feature to simply
>> not take an
>> argument? This won't break backwards compatibility.
>> But it does
>> preclude adding new features in there later...like,
>> I don't know,
>> different stuff for Mongolian (or is it Tibetan?)
>> that reads bottom-to-
>> top right-to-left or something. (Uh, don't anyone
>> take offence at my
>> ignorance. It's past midnight and I'm hammering this
>> out right before
>> bed.)>
> _______________________________________________
>> XeTeX mailing list
>> postmaster at tug.org
>> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>>
>
>
>
>       
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:40:18 +1030
> From: Will Robertson <wspr81 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] CJK & fontspec
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
> Message-ID: <C0CEC340-689F-4602-9A27-C4982AE2B7B7 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On 18/03/2008, at 2:28 AM, Wilfred van Rooijen wrote:
>
>> Yes, I experienced some issues with the vertical
>> typesetting of Japanese using the
>> 'Vertical=RotatedGlyphs' option (which didn't work).
>
> Here's an example that works for me:
>
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{fontspec,graphicx}
> \begin{document}
> \centering\fontspec{Hiragino Mincho Pro}
> ??????\par
> \addfontfeature{Vertical=RotatedGlyphs}
> \rotatebox{-90}{??????}
> \end{document}
>
> When the ICU renderer (i.e., xdvipdfmx) both the "vertical" and
> "+vrt2" features are applied.
>
> Will
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: smime.p7s
> Type: application/pkcs7-signature
> Size: 2415 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url : http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20080318/012d7705/attachment-0001.bin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:15:25 -0400
> From: William Adams <will.adams at frycomm.com>
> Subject: [XeTeX] xdv2pdf (was Re:  embolden bugs)
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
> Message-ID: <559E4235-BED6-41C3-ADDC-B1205398C0D4 at frycomm.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> On Mar 17, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Will Robertson wrote:
>
>> Back to an earlier note: how well supported is xdv2pdf going to be
>> in the future? Are we kind of hoping to roll everything into
>> xdvipdfmx?
>
>
> Well, unless it's possible to encapsulate all of Apple's graphics
> filetype support, or do it better in xdvipdfmx, I'd hope that xdv2pdf
> would be maintained for those of us who have to place .tif files &c.
>
> William
>
> -- 
> William Adams
> senior graphic designer
> Fry Communications
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:58:26 +0000
> From: Jonathan Kew <jonathan_kew at sil.org>
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] xdv2pdf (was Re:  embolden bugs)
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
> Message-ID: <146CB4D0-2802-4604-AC0D-0E8FD3D3E88D at sil.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> On 17 Mar 2008, at 8:15 pm, William Adams wrote:
>
>> On Mar 17, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Will Robertson wrote:
>>
>>> Back to an earlier note: how well supported is xdv2pdf going to be
>>> in the future? Are we kind of hoping to roll everything into
>>> xdvipdfmx?
>>
>>
>> Well, unless it's possible to encapsulate all of Apple's graphics
>> filetype support, or do it better in xdvipdfmx, I'd hope that xdv2pdf
>> would be maintained for those of us who have to place .tif files &c.
>
> It'd be nice to have full support for all the graphics formats, etc.,
> in xdvipdfmx, but realistically, I don't expect that any time soon.
>
> In the meantime, I have no plan to abandon xdv2pdf -- but I also
> don't expect it to see much further development, except possibly
> minor updates where needed to remain usable (such as supporting the
> embolden feature). Note that Apple's changing font support may end up
> breaking it one day anyway -- we already (since Tiger) have those
> irritating console messages about improper fonts whenever it needs to
> use an old .pfb font (like CM, etc).
>
> Could you consider converting your .tif files to .png or .jpg (with
> high-quality settings) somewhere along the line? You'd have to do
> that to use them with pdftex, too, wouldn't you? (IIRC)
>
> JK
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:36:34 +0000
> From: Jonathan Kew <jonathan_kew at sil.org>
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] MM fonts
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
> Message-ID: <748BB9E9-0F5F-4CB6-94C9-1DDB657E2696 at sil.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> On 17 Mar 2008, at 12:50 pm, Will Robertson wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Support for MM fonts seem to be broken in the SVN version of XeTeX:
>>
>> \documentclass{article}
>> \begin{document}
>> \font\x="Minion MM Roman" at 12pt\x Hello
>> \end{document}
>>
>> LOG:
>> [snip]
>> (/usr/local/texlive/2007/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/size12.clo)) (./
>> small.aux)Mon Mar 17 23:16:21 Thneed.local xelatex[20107] <Error>:
>> GCGetStrikeMetrics failed: error 4.
>> Mon Mar 17 23:16:21 Thneed.local xelatex[20107] <Error>:
>> GCGetStrikeMetrics failed: error 4.
>> /Users/will/Library/TeXShop/Engines/XeLaTeX+xdv2pdf.engine: line 2:
>> 20107 Bus error               /usr/texbin/xelatex -output-
>> driver=xdv2pdf -shell-escape "$1"
>>
>>
>> I'm not arguing that MM fonts should necessarily continue to be
>> supported...if they are going to officially be phased out then I'll
>> remove all reference to them in fontspec.
>
> Hmmm.... it works for me, with the latest xetex + xdv2pdf, but I'm
> still on Tiger; are you running Leopard? I'm guessing this is a 10.5
> issue; it seems as if a lot of font stuff has changed there (not all
> for the better), judging by the frequency of font-related issues I've
> seen on the OS X TeX list since people started upgrading.
>
> I'll see if I can try this on a Leopard machine sometime soon, but I
> have a feeling that maybe these old fonts are simply going to fade
> away.....
>
> JK
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> XeTeX mailing list
> XeTeX at tug.org
> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>
>
> End of XeTeX Digest, Vol 48, Issue 34
> *************************************