[XeTeX] paper available
jonathan_kew at sil.org
Mon Apr 18 18:49:09 CEST 2005
On 18 Apr 2005, at 5:24 pm, Will Robertson wrote:
> (Don't you hate it when you highjack a thread and forget to change the
> name until it's too late to bother doing anything about it?)
> On 19 Apr 2005, at 12:52 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote:
>> On 18 Apr 2005, at 4:01 pm, Will Robertson wrote:
>>> By the way, how do you like the sound of the options
>>> "[Renderer=AAT]" and "[Renderer=OpenType]"? It's not strictly
>>> correct, but I couldn't think of an easy way to describe it
>> Hmm.... [Renderer=OpenType] will be a problem when there are multiple
>> possible renderers supporting OpenType tables. (Before anyone jumps
>> to conclusions, bear in mind that there's been talk of OT Layout
>> support in Tiger, which means that the ATSUI-based renderer will
>> presumably start doing some OpenType as well.) So I'd prefer to see
>> this as [Renderer=ICU], I think.
>> And how about [Renderer=ATSUI] rather than AAT? Strictly speaking,
>> AAT is the font technology; ATSUI is the renderer--and as noted, it
>> may start doing OT as well as AAT layout soon. (Yes, I know the
>> actual XeTeX option is wrong on this too. Maybe I should change it
>> before it's too firmly entrenched.) Or if "ATSUI" seems too obscure
>> for users, what about [Renderer=OSX]?
> "Hmmm" indeed! It really might depend on how Apple's ATSUI renderer
> deals with OpenType -- if it ends up using the same interface in XeTeX
> as the ICU renderer, then for the internal purposes of fontspec at
> least it's the font technology that counts and not the renderer.
> (Which is where I'm having the issues.)
From the user's (and fontspec's) point of view, it's the renderer that
counts, and not the font technology. XeTeX will continue to support two
text renderers, ATSUI and ICU; the ICU renderer will remain an entirely
separate path with its own distinct interface.
> I think I might let this one sit until I've got a firmer idea of
> what's going to happen with Tiger. (Do you actually not know anything
> about Tiger's OpenType support, Jonathan? Or are you just good at
> sticking to NDAs? Oh wait, you can't answer that without implying that
> you are indeed under one, so it's probably better to ignore the
I don't see any need to rush on this, though, so letting it sit for a
while would be fine IMO.
More information about the XeTeX