[XeTeX] Strange Euler Script font behaviour
William F. Adams
wadams at atlis.com
Sat Nov 20 15:46:04 CET 2004
On Nov 20, 2004, at 7:53 AM, Bruno Voisin wrote:
>> 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.
Dude, we're already using xetex and xelatex, no?
> 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.
That's pretty much what I had in mind. I'll take a look at xplain.tex
(I'm guessing it's installed by xetex?) and some of the earlier posts
in this list on math characters.
William Adams, publishing specialist
voice - 717-731-6707 | Fax - 717-731-6708
More information about the XeTeX