[XeTeX] A small tip
will at guerilla.net.au
Fri Nov 18 01:47:30 CET 2005
On 18/11/2005, at 8am, Ross Moore wrote:
> On 17/11/2005, at 6:16 PM, Will Robertson wrote:
> This gives me 8212 .
> If you get 2014 then maybe it's a package-version thing.
> The relevant files are:
> These are quite old -- all from 2001.
> What versions do you have ?
[2004/02/05 v1.0d Input encoding file]
[2004/02/09 v1.1b UTF-8 support for inputenc]
And ucs.sty is not even loaded. I recall reading that utf8 encoding
in inputenc had deprecated it to a certain extent, but I can't
remember the details. (And utf8x goes even further...)
Still, I'm very surprised that they would have changed from hex to
decimal like that. I wonder if that was somehow related to ucs?
>> On a related note, I thought xunicode might provide an equivalent
>> to inputenc's \DeclareUnicodeCharacter,
>> but it seems that xunicode's \DeclareUTFcharacter is for a
>> different purpose (at least, I couldn't get it to do what I expect).
> Xunicode's \DeclareUTFcharacter translates *into* Unicode for
> the output.
> Inputenc's \DeclareUnicodeCharacter translates *out of* UTF8
> into a TeX macro.
That's how I ended up assuming it must work. In retrospect,
xunicode's is perhaps a confusing name for that command, then. Would
\DeclareUTFmacro be better?
>> (I'll never remember when to do hex and when to do decimal...is
>> the preceding "x" supposed to remind me? Why is it there, out of
> Yes; it's just a reminder that this is hex, not decimal.
> It plays no role at all in the processing.
Okay...I suppose because I can never remember which to use,
standardising on a single number base for referring to glyph slots is
a good idea.
>> Well, it wouldn't be so bad (are all the kerns and nobreaks, etc.,
>> stripped out by hyperref?),
> No, it doesn't work that way.
Oh, of course! That's a really nice solution. (Stripping out TeX
primitives sounds very unpleasant, actually.)
>>> ([hxetex.def]'s something that I'll try to provide sometime.)
>> Let me know if you need help...I can't promise anything, of course :)
>> Speaking of your packages, I wonder if it would be useful to
>> provide a "lean" version of xunicode as a package option so as to
>> only load the necessary portions of the unicode characters you
> Not in the near future, sorry.
> There are things missing from XeTeX support which have a higher
> priority than reorganising what *is* available.
Would it be a good idea to talk about the missing things so that
people have an idea of what is going on? I'd be happy to help out
some, as I hope I've demonstrated. I suspect the amount of time you
put into xunicode is very much under-appreciated, not to mention
color and graphicx support, which "just work" without even people
thinking about it.
More information about the XeTeX