[XeTeX] wrong kerning and slow processing with xelatex in texlive 2010
Vladimir Lomov
lomov.vl at gmail.com
Mon Oct 11 18:11:41 CEST 2010
Hi Vadim.
** Vadim Radionov [2010-10-11 19:31:50 +0400]:
> Hi, Vladimir,
>
> My question was not about kerning in this commercial font. It was
> about 2 instances of xetex that gave 2 different result. And i asked
> how i can figure out what's wrong with one of them (texlive 2010).
Ok. you could check if this problem of engine or driver (xdvipdfmx) in
following way:
1. Make pdf with xetex from TL2009:
$ xetex test.tex
Save pdf as, for example, test_2009.pdf
2. Make pdf with xetex from TL2010:
$ xetex test.tex
Save pdf as, for example, test_2010.pdf
3. Run xetex from TL2009
$ xetex -no-pdf test.tex
this will give you test.xdv. Then run xdvipdfmx from TL2010
$ xdvipdfmx test.xdv
Save pdf as test_xpdf2010.pdf
4. Run xetex from TL2010 (!)
$ xdvipdfmx test.xdv
and xdvipdfmx from TL2009 (!)
Save pdf as test_xpdf2009.pdf
Compare the resulted pdfs. In either case ensure that you have only _ONE_
OTF/TTF file, even if you think that that particular one (for example in
$HOME/.fonts) will be accessed firstly than other, drop that idea.
>>> also gives good kerning with xetex
>> I don't understand here. Kerning is always matter of taste.
>> ...
>> what's wrong?
>
> You can check the second post in this thread. In test1.pdf (produced
> with old version) kerning is OK. In test.pdf (produced from the same
> source with newer xetex) it is obvoiusly wrong in 2 places. (Sorry for
> papersize again.)
Yes, now I have seen you files. But this is rather strange. You're
saying that you use TL2009 and TL2010 but according to pdfinfo both your
files produced by the same xdvipdfmx.
I have TL2009 installed in parallel with TL2010. I use a sample file with
Garamond Premier Pro fond (not I don't buy it, but for test it is enough
for me :|) and ensure that binaries of either TL2009 or TL2010 are accessed
first.
TL2009
(new shell)
export PATH=$TL2009_PATH:$PATH
(here: TL2009_PATH=/usr/local/opt/texlive/bin/x86_64-linux)
run
$ xetex ex.tex
$ pdfinfo ex.pdf
$ xetex -no-pdf ex.tex
$ xdvipdfmx test.xdv
$ pdfinfo ex.pdf
Creator: XeTeX output 2010.10.12:0106
Producer: xdvipdfmx (0.7.7)
CreationDate: Tue Oct 12 01:06:15 2010
Tagged: no
Pages: 1
Encrypted: no
Page size: 595.28 x 841.89 pts (A4)
File size: 4553 bytes
Optimized: no
PDF version: 1.4
TL2010
(current shell) always set as following
export PATH=$TL2010_PATH:$PATH
(here TL2010_PATH=/usr/local/opt/texlive/2010/bin/x86_64-linux)
the same run sequence.
Creator: XeTeX output 2010.10.12:0106
Producer: xdvipdfmx (0.7.8)
CreationDate: Tue Oct 12 01:06:55 2010
Tagged: no
Pages: 1
Encrypted: no
Page size: 595.28 x 841.89 pts (A4)
File size: 3669 bytes
Optimized: no
PDF version: 1.5
>> For me this is font problem not the engine. Also you could check that
>> you have only one font-file (I mean either only TTF or OTF, if both this
>> could be reason of descrepancy). About font desing and implementation I
>> think Khaled could tell you more.
> Yes, this is probably a font problem. Both xetexs find the same otf
> font in ~/.fonts
> But the result it different.
>
>> Please don't post problems with commercial fonts because it could be
>> almost impossible to tracker down the source of the problem.
>
> Sorry for bothering you. I was asking not for solution to my problem
> but for hints to solve it myself.
As I already said I tried with Garamond Premier Pro, in both cases the
same result, so this could the problem with that particular font. But
before make that conclusion please check the previous steps.
---
WBR, Vladimir Lomov
--
You were s'posed to laugh!
More information about the XeTeX
mailing list