[XeTeX] Incompatibility between footmisc and xltxtra

[Bruno Voisin]

Just a note to mention an incompatibility between the footmisc and  
xltxtra packages.

Minimal example (on Mac OS 10.5.2, with XeTeX and associated packages  
from MacTeX/TeXLive-2007):

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[multiple]{footmisc}
\usepackage{fontspec,xltxtra}
\setmainfont{Garamond}
%\setmainfont{GaramondPremrPro}
\begin{document}
Some text\footnote{First note.}\footnote{Second note.}.
\end{document}

If Garamond is used (from Microsoft, a TrueType font), XeLaTeX yields  
warnings such as:

Package fontspec Warning:
     AAT feature 'VerticalPosition=Superior' (10,1) not available
     in font "Garamond/AAT"
This warning occured on input line 6.

and the comma in the footnote marks is placed far too low (and not in  
superscript size):

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Image 1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5708 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20080218/103f4187/attachment-0004.png 
-------------- next part --------------



compared with what's obtained without xltxtra:

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Image 2.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5657 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20080218/103f4187/attachment-0005.png 
-------------- next part --------------



If Garamond Premier Pro is used (from Adobe, an OpenType PostScript  
font), there's no warning but the comma is now too high:

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Image 3.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5623 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20080218/103f4187/attachment-0006.png 
-------------- next part --------------



compared with what's obtained without xltxtra:

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Image 4.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5611 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20080218/103f4187/attachment-0007.png 
-------------- next part --------------



This may have been reported already, I don't know. I'm just reporting  
this in a rush as I discover the problem.

Back to the conference abstract due last Thursday!

Bruno Voisin