[XeTeX] Strange Euler Script font behaviour

Bruno Voisin bvoisin at mac.com
Fri Nov 19 17:29:39 CET 2004

Le 19 nov. 04, à 17:06, William F. Adams a écrit :

> I think we can forego backward compatibility for expediency. After 
> all, very few of these legacy documents are in Unicode now, no?

I'm not sure that's a good idea. After all, most of the requests 
Jonathan has had on this list, after word about XeTeX started to spread 
on the OS X TeX list and people began to experiment with XeTeX, were 
requests for compatibility with LaTeX documents. And a fair number of 
the functions that were added since were motivated by these requests, 
like ":mapping=tex-text" or Ross' utf8accents.sty.

I generally disagree with Microsoft, but one of the things they say, 
which I think is really true, is that the slowness of the evolution of 
their software is partly the consequence of the huge installed base 
they have to deal with, and the compatibility they must ensure (unless 
they deliberately decide to break it, of course, like with Word). I 
really think compatibility with standard (La)TeX is a prerequisite for 
wide XeTeX adoption.

One thing I think would be useful (no hurry, though) is documentation 
of the process Jonathan used for converting the PFB CM/AMS fonts to 
OTF, so that motivated users may start experimenting with converting 
their fonts for XeTeX use. But then there are these darn licensing 
issues, which I hope apply only to a restricted number of fonts. And 
they can't apply in any case to Fourier fonts, for example.

Enough for today, have a nice WE,

Bruno Voisin

More information about the XeTeX mailing list