[XeTeX] XeTeX: ready for full-time math?

Mojca Miklavec mojca.miklavec.lists at gmail.com
Mon Aug 21 17:46:03 CEST 2006

On 8/17/06, Will Robertson wrote:
> On 18/08/2006, at 0:26 , Andrew Arana wrote:
> > I recall some time back not too far that there
> > was concern that for heavy math use, XeTeX wasn't yet the best
> > choice.
> It's almost ready :)
> I have the intention of readying the support necessary in the not too
> distant future, and this list of course will be the first to know
> when that's done.

Does "almost ready" apply to "plain (Xe)TeX" or to "XeLaTeX"? I'm
asking this because I would really like to use that in ConTeXt and if
the support will be more low-level, it might be easier to incorporate
it into ConTeXt (I don't understand a word in LaTeX packages, but I'm
ready to help according to my limited abbilities and to test it). I
saw some math stuff in /texmf/tex/xelatex/fontspec/fontspec.sty, but I
have no idea what exactly it stands for.

> The situation is complicated by the fact that there aren't too many
> fonts with tons of maths glyphs...

Probably not suitable for papers and magazines, but more than enough
for testing: Antykwa Torunska, Iwona & Kurier have a full set of
"standard" TeX glyphs and are available in OpenType format.


More information about the XeTeX mailing list