[XeTeX] xetex file organization
jonathan_kew at sil.org
Thu Nov 4 10:53:39 CET 2004
Thanks for your comments, Hans; some responses below.
On 4 Nov 2004, at 8:15 am, h h extern wrote:
> Jonathan Kew wrote:
>> (TECkit mapping file(s) for xetex font-mapping
I was uneasy about using fonts/map/ as XeTeX's "font mappings"
mechanism is a completely different thing from the font
name/file/encoding mappings used in dvips, pdftex, etc. (For that
purpose, it currently reads dvips's psfonts.map file.) I don't think we
want those other tools finding XeTeX's files there. Maybe it should be
fonts/misc/xetex/teckit, as in one of Bruno's suggestions, or even
xetex/teckit/map and xetex/teckit/tec (for "source" and "compiled"
>> (...etc, as under current fonts/otf)
> interesting problem, since i don;t think that this xetex sublevel is
> present now, i sthis really xetex specific? if not, just leave the
> xetex sublevel; alternatively, if these are special files,
> more fits tds
Not fonts/xetex/... because these are standard OpenType files,
potentially usable by other software (though I don't know of anything
in the TeX world right now that would use them).
One could argue that fonts/opentype/xetex/.... is appropriate on the
basis that "xetex" is the "supplier" of these particular files, even
though they're obviously direct derivatives of the .pfbs that come from
the various original suppliers shown. Suppose bluesky, for example,
ships their own set of .otf fonts some day; it would be nice if the
xetex installer (or removal script) didn't clobber those.
> this leads to file name clashes, so maybe it's better to cook up
> something, unless it are replacements, and the xetex path takes
They are indeed replacements; eventually, I hope the XeTeX extensions
will be part of the standard LaTeX distribution, but I expect that'll
take some time. Perhaps when XeTeX itself gets properly integrated into
TeXLive. For now, the TEXINPUTS.xelatex variable will ensure the
modified versions are found.
>> I've included a "xetex" level in several cases here (under
>> fonts/misc, fonts/opentype, scripts) to make it easy to distinguish
>> items installed with xetex from other files that might be present. Is
>> this a reasonable thing to do?
> the recent tds/tex live changes kind of got rid of those etex, pdftex
> etc paths
They got rid of it at the top level of organization. But there are
still things like:
(for different syntaxes, in this case, I think), but also:
for auxiliary Plain-related TeX files that are associated with a
specific program. Note that this doesn't typically affect which files
are available to a given task, as the entire subtree (e.g., tex/plain
or fonts/opentype) is normally searched.
Other opinions still welcome....
More information about the XeTeX