[XeTeX] Strange Euler Script font behaviour
bvoisin at mac.com
Sat Nov 20 13:53:28 CET 2004
Le 19 nov. 04, à 19:20, William F. Adams a écrit :
> On Nov 19, 2004, at 11:29 AM, Bruno Voisin wrote:
>> 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.
> Yeah, but wouldn't a Unicode-compatible/ready version of Plain be a
> better foundation to build a Unicode version of LaTeX on?
Yes, certainly, but it's very likely that, adapting plain TeX (i.e.
plain.tex) to Unicode, people will end up willing to add definitions,
for example, for the additional math symbols in Unicode, and then for
the additional letters in it, and finally to adjust, optimize and
enhance the Plain macros. And then you end up rewriting Omega/Aleph, or
creating yet another variant of TeX.
That said, maybe that's overly pessimistic, and/or I'm misinterpreting
what you suggested. I thought xplain.tex did all the Unicode adaptation
of plain.tex for text fonts; maybe what would be needed is another file
doing the adaptation for math fonts.
More information about the XeTeX