[XeTeX] OS X fonts.

[William F. Adams]

On Saturday, July 24, 2004, at 04:12  PM, Alain Schremmer wrote:

> The issue I am now facing is whether TeXshop + XeTeX source can be 
> considered "transparent". ( I wasn't clear. I do know about pdf and, 
> by TeXShop's output I meant "source" rather than pdf. Sorry about 
> that.)
>
> Now the GNU Free Document License reads in part:
>
> A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy,
> represented in a format whose specification is available to the
> general public, that is suitable for revising the document
> straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of
> pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available
> drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or
> for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input
> to text formatters.  A copy made in an otherwise Transparent file
> format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been arranged to thwart
> or discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent.
> An image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount
> of text.  A copy that is not "Transparent" is called "Opaque"..
>
> Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include plain
> ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format, ****LaTeX input 
> format****, SGML
> or XML using a publicly available DTD, and standard-conforming simple
> HTML, PostScript or PDF designed for human modification.  Examples of
> transparent image formats include PNG, XCF and JPG.  Opaque formats
> include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by
> proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or
> processing tools are not generally available, and the
> machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word
> processors for output purposes only.
>
> **** added by me.
>
> I have a feeling that as soon as the source "contains XeTeX-specific 
> coding (such as the one [you] suggested for Futura Condensed Medium)", 
> the answer will be that the source is NOT transparent.
>
> But, given that I am a raw beginner in TeX things, I would appreciate 
> real opinion(s).

I'd say that such a document occupies a middle ground between 
transparent and opaque.

The issue is whether or no a document can be processed readily w/o 
recourse to proprietary software (note that
``SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or
   processing tools are not generally available''
is considered opaque).

The issue is whether or no Mac OS X and ATSUI can be considered 
``generally available'', which may depend upon the context.

It's certainly generally available if one is authoring a document of 
interest only to people running Mac OS X, but for more general 
audiences this probably isn't the case.

At work, I try to always set up a document so that it uses a matched 
pair of packages:

  - a ``stub'' which provides a \newcommand{} for all document-specific 
markup which provides a reasonable representation w/o layout-specific 
techniques
  - a finished style which \renewcommand{}s all such as needed to 
achieve the final layout

An author will get the stub package and the finished style will be 
commented out when source is returned to the author.

William

-- 
William Adams, publishing specialist
voice - 717-731-6707 | Fax - 717-731-6708
www.atlis.com