[XeTeX] No underdot in Adobe Garamond Pro?

[Rembrandt Wolpert]

However, as pointed out before, there are instances where there isn't a
glyph in a (publisher-required) font, and one has to compose one with the
\u\ü combination, for example. So I am happy that there is a possibility to
compose a needed combination. After all, it's not the input I want to be
read, but the output...

as ever,
Rembrandt


On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 06:54, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj at melroch.se> wrote:

> On 2009-05-07 Ulrike Fischer wrote:
> > I would certainly never use \"u instead of ü. But I at
> > least do find it much easier to use commands for symbols
> > I use rather seldom than to set up a lot of shortcuts in
> > my editor which I will probably not remember when I need
> > them.
>
> That's true, but there again I use XIM, so,
> I'll rather type <Compose><!><d>.
>
> I guess the real difference between us is that I feel
> those \<CHAR>{<ARG>} commands make for utter unreadability,
> and my main reason for using XeLaTeX is exactly that I
> won't have to use them.
>
>  > And even with pdflatex I don't use all chars I
> > could input directly. E.g. I always use -- and --- and
> > not the corresponding unicode glyphs because at my
> > opinion it is much more readable.
>
> I'm all with you on that one!
>
> > Also using the direct glyph will not solve the problem
> > discussed here. If a glyph is not in a font it doesn't
> > reappear if you use another input method.
> >
> > And at last: commands can be defined to work in various
> > circumstances. \d{<ARG>} will work with new open type
> > fonts *and* with old OT1/T1 encoded fonts and with a lot
> > of <ARG>'s -- and you can easily redefine it. It is quite
> > possible that a future xunicode defines \d in such a way
> > that it tests if the glyph is in the font and use a
> > fallback if not.
>
> I would rather have the software be smart enough to check
> for each Unicode character in my input file if it exists
> in the font, failing that to try replacing it with the
> corresponding Normalization Form Canonical Decomposition and
> failing that
> to try some other fallback.  That kindh of checking and
> rote memorization is what computers are supposed to be
> good at and we shouldn't have to use a markup command to
> triger that checking; it should be done automatically
> for every multi-byte character.  Is it too much in this day
> and age to expect the software to be aware of Unicode
> equivalence and do someting smart with it?  If xunicode
> already is smart enough to have "\d{d}" trigger a check
> if \char"1E0D exists in the output font why can't "ḍ" on its
> own trigger such a check?
> _______________________________________________
> XeTeX mailing list
> postmaster at tug.org
> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>



-- 
人有不為也而後可有為
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20090508/86db2851/attachment.html