[XeTeX] No underdot in Adobe Garamond Pro?

Rembrandt Wolpert wolpert at uark.edu
Fri May 8 14:23:30 CEST 2009


sorry -- typo -- I meant the setup (thanks to Ulrike) of \zhtone{\u}{ü}.

as ever,
Rembrandt

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 07:21, Rembrandt Wolpert <wolpert at uark.edu> wrote:

> However, as pointed out before, there are instances where there isn't a
> glyph in a (publisher-required) font, and one has to compose one with the
> \u\ü combination, for example. So I am happy that there is a possibility to
> compose a needed combination. After all, it's not the input I want to be
> read, but the output...
>
> as ever,
> Rembrandt
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 06:54, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj at melroch.se> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-05-07 Ulrike Fischer wrote:
>> > I would certainly never use \"u instead of ü. But I at
>> > least do find it much easier to use commands for symbols
>> > I use rather seldom than to set up a lot of shortcuts in
>> > my editor which I will probably not remember when I need
>> > them.
>>
>> That's true, but there again I use XIM, so,
>> I'll rather type <Compose><!><d>.
>>
>> I guess the real difference between us is that I feel
>> those \<CHAR>{<ARG>} commands make for utter unreadability,
>> and my main reason for using XeLaTeX is exactly that I
>> won't have to use them.
>>
>>  > And even with pdflatex I don't use all chars I
>> > could input directly. E.g. I always use -- and --- and
>> > not the corresponding unicode glyphs because at my
>> > opinion it is much more readable.
>>
>> I'm all with you on that one!
>>
>> > Also using the direct glyph will not solve the problem
>> > discussed here. If a glyph is not in a font it doesn't
>> > reappear if you use another input method.
>> >
>> > And at last: commands can be defined to work in various
>> > circumstances. \d{<ARG>} will work with new open type
>> > fonts *and* with old OT1/T1 encoded fonts and with a lot
>> > of <ARG>'s -- and you can easily redefine it. It is quite
>> > possible that a future xunicode defines \d in such a way
>> > that it tests if the glyph is in the font and use a
>> > fallback if not.
>>
>> I would rather have the software be smart enough to check
>> for each Unicode character in my input file if it exists
>> in the font, failing that to try replacing it with the
>> corresponding Normalization Form Canonical Decomposition and
>> failing that
>> to try some other fallback.  That kindh of checking and
>> rote memorization is what computers are supposed to be
>> good at and we shouldn't have to use a markup command to
>> triger that checking; it should be done automatically
>> for every multi-byte character.  Is it too much in this day
>> and age to expect the software to be aware of Unicode
>> equivalence and do someting smart with it?  If xunicode
>> already is smart enough to have "\d{d}" trigger a check
>> if \char"1E0D exists in the output font why can't "ḍ" on its
>> own trigger such a check?
>> _______________________________________________
>> XeTeX mailing list
>> postmaster at tug.org
>> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 人有不為也而後可有為
>



-- 
人有不為也而後可有為
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20090508/447da837/attachment.html 


More information about the XeTeX mailing list