Collected Wisdom,<br><br>Adobe's Garamond Premier Pro has a set of nice ligatures, and<br>Xe(La)Tex with the necessary incantation<br><br>\setmainfont[Ligatures={Common,Rare}]{Garamond Premier Pro}<br><br>deals nicely with most of these -- even those which seem to have only<br>
GIDs (ffl, for example). However, there are some particularly nice<br>glyphs which I wondered how to deal with more elegantly. They come up<br>perfectly fine with:<br><br>\newcommand{\ch}{\XeTeXglyph260} % "ligature" ch<br>
\newcommand{\ck}{\XeTeXglyph261} % "ligature" ck<br>\newcommand{\ich}{\XeTeXglyph264} % "ligature" italic ch<br>\newcommand{\ick}{\XeTeXglyph265} % "ligature" italic ck<br>\newcommand{\ith}{\XeTeXglyph301} % ligature italic th <br>
<br>but this is rather unintuitive, disturbing (and certainly<br>non-portable) when typing on a book for a publisher who has finally<br>agreed to accept a XeLaTeX "manuscript". E.g.<br><br>\emph{{\ich}oice of {\ith}e pa{\ick}age} ...<br>
<br>Any hints how to get in a simpler way to these "ligatures" (I am not <br>sure if the ch/ck would strictly qualify as a ligature) would be most<br>appreciated. (Once discovered, one can't stand a "straight" ch<br>
anymore...). A simple sed/awk/per/python/scheme script to change all<br>this automatically in a pre-processing swoop isn't that simple,<br>because we need then also to take .bbl etc files into account. (no,<br>not {\ith} in the title-field for a certain bibliography entry style...)<br>
<br>Many thanks for any ideas.<br><br>Rembrandt<br><br>-- <br> 人有不為也而後可有為<br>