[XeTeX] Fontspec and SBL Hebrew: Possible Bug?

[Avi Wollman]

looks okay by me.
miktex 2.8 (windows 7x64)
This is XeTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.2-0.9995.1 (MiKTeX 2.8)




Avi

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 4:51 PM, David Purton <dcpurton at marshwiggle.net>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Just wondering if this is a possible bug:
>
> I was looking through the SBL Hebrew manual
> (http://www.sbl-site.org/Fonts/SBLHebrewUserManual1.5x.pdf) and noticed
> that one of the tricky combinations mentioned in the manual is not
> rendered correctly. The particular character in question is the alef on
> page 7 of the manual. The SBL Hebrew font is available from
> http://www.sbl-site.org/Fonts/SBL_Hbrw.ttf
>
> No combinations I entered gave the correct rendering. Looking at the
> font, it looks like there are some unmapped glyphs designed to cater for
> this and similar cases. Initially I wondered if the ZWJ was a kludge,
> but it does seem to appear in at least some copies of the WLC codex
> online. Others use the same character ordering, but without the ZWJ.
>
> My file versions:
>
> This is XeTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.2-0.9995.2 (TeX Live 2009/Debian)
> xltxtra: 2009/09/02 v0.5
> xunicode: 2008/02/08 v0.91
> fontspec: 2008/08/09 v1.18
> bidi: v1.1.1, <commit 54>, 2010/07/25
>
>
> Minimal sample file showing various character orderings possible,
> incuding the one with the ZWJ mentioned in the manual.
>
>
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{xltxtra}
> \usepackage{bidi}
> \newfontfamily\hebrewfont[Script=Hebrew,Contextuals=Alternate,Ligatures=Required]{SBL
> Hebrew}
> \begin{document}
> \hebrewfont\setRL
> אֲ‍ֽ֭\quad % alef + hataf patah + ZWJ + meteg + dehi (From SBL Hebrew
> manual)
> אֲֽ֭\quad % alef + hataf patah + meteg + dehi
> אֲֽ֭\quad % alef + hataf patah + dehi + meteg
> אֲֽ֭\quad % alef + meteg + hataf patah + dehi
> אֲֽ֭\quad % alef + meteg + dehi + hataf patah
> אֲֽ֭\quad % alef + dehi + hataf patah + meteg
> אֲֽ֭      % alef + dehi + meteg + hataf + meteg
> \end{document}
>
>
> Questions:
>
> Is there a fontspec option I am missing to enable correct rendering in
> this case?
>
> Can others confirm that this is a problem (in case some of my files are
> too old)?
>
> Any comments on how XeLaTeX/fontspec should behave? It would make sense
> to me for at least the first two options in the minimal file above to
> render correctly, since I do not understand why the ZWJ would be
> necessary other than as a kludge... but I am very ignorant, so they may
> be a good reason. Other parts of the SBL Hebrew manual talk about the
> font being able to render correctly pointing and cantilation in any
> order. However, I don't understand how and when normalisation should
> occur.
>
>
> cheers
>
> David
>
> --
> David Purton
> dcpurton at marshwiggle.net
>
> For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to
> strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him.
>                                 2 Chronicles 16:9a
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFMFOJ1FtfqMu4ICewRAmr4AKCUwPbSbJGCQ6bfwTYuMizr/4+1fwCfd2Nq
> 1k7Hnk0FlLXnwrU0vqt16sw=
> =2QFF
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
>  http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>
>


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------
Avi Wollman אבי וולמן
http://www.google.com/profiles/avi.wollman
--------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20100613/b24eebef/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: test.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 11968 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20100613/b24eebef/attachment-0001.pdf>