[XeTeX] XeTeX 0.99 released

[Stephen Moye]

OK. 

We can all relax now. 

I have had multiple copies of the file open (with different names, of course, and you'd think I'd notice) and one had \Verticaltrue commented and the other had \Verticaltrue uncommented. The delightfully clever (and, I hope, merciful) people who frequent this list won't need three guesses to guess which one I was working on.

Apologies all around. That will teach me to get up at 3am.

SGM


On Thursday, December 08, 2005, at 03:39PM, Herbert Schulz <herbs at wideopenwest.com> wrote:

>
>On Dec 8, 2005, at 2:22 PM, Stephen Moye wrote:
>
>> I changed:
>>
>> \def\V{:vertical} % for font defs
>>
>> to
>>
>> \def\V{/AAT:vertical} % for font defs
>>
>> and this seems to make no difference, both on 10.3.9 and 10.4.3
>>
>> [8>{
>>
>> SGM
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, December 08, 2005, at 03:09PM, Jonathan Kew  
>> <jonathan_kew at sil.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 Dec 2005, at 7:57 pm, Stephen Moye wrote:
>>>
>>>>  I can test this on 10.3.9 and 10.4.3 -- both systems seem to
>>>> behave the same way in this matter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I hate to betray my ignorance (I ought to be used to it by new ;>})
>>>> but when you say "using the /AAT qualifier", what do you mean? Do
>>>> you mean:
>>>>
>>>> \font\test="fooboo/AAT:vertical" at 12 pt
>>>
>>> Yes, that would be it.... except I don't seem to have a font named
>>> "fooboo", so that doesn't work for me. ;-)
>>>
>>> JK
>>>
>
>Howdy,
>
>I just installed 0.99 and downloaded the ThreeKingdomsCh1 document.  
>By making sure \Verticaltrue was un-commented I got vertical layout.  
>Didn't have to add the /AAT to the \V definition. This is with  
>10.4.3. Of course I have no idea why this works on my system or  
>doesn't work in Stephen's case.
>
>Good Luck,
>
>Herb Schulz
>(herbs at wideopenwest.com)
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>XeTeX mailing list
>postmaster at tug.org
>http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>
>