[XeTeX] misplaced combining diacritical marks 2

[Alexander Schultheiß]

I'm replying to my own post to notify everyone who tried to help me,
that I (a) as Khaled pointed out to me in the fontforge mailinglist,
that the order of the lookup tables has to be taken into account; and
(b) that it, however, worked in XeTeX but not in XeLaTeX. I don't know
why but at this point with other pressing matters I don't really care
as I switch to XeTeX. Thanks everyone for the time they took in order
to help me. \bye

Alex

2010/9/2 Alexander Schultheiß <aschulth at googlemail.com>:
> Hello Peter,
>
>> Something odd is going on here, but I don't think it has to do with anchor
>> marks. Junicode actually has a precomposed character m + macron + acute +
>> dot below. It's not a Unicode character, but rather is unencoded. (I can't
>> remember why it's there: maybe a user asked for it at some point.) It should
>> be getting substituted (via ccmp, the earliest lookup performed) whenever
>> the renderer sees the sequence m + U0323 + U0304 + U0301 or m + U0304 +
>> U0301 + U0323. I think that ICU/XeTeX is probably doing the right thing at
>> this point. But Junicode's precomposed character is made of references
>> instead of outlines, and sometimes ICU/XeTeX (not sure who's doing the
>> rendering at this point) gets confused about glyphs composed of references.
>
> Ok, haven't looked into glyph composition yet. I've found the entries
> that compose the mdotmacronacute. It looks like the glyph I composed
> by hand and attached to one of my previous posts (test4.pdf line 3.3)
> but not quite like the mdotmacronacute in lines 2.2 and 2.4-6. Is this
> maybe a rendering problem? Is there an order in which all the
> informations in the GSUB and GPOS tables are evaluated by xelatex?
>
>> Alexander, if you don't mind my sending you a big file off-list, I'd like to
>> see if a change in the Junicode font will fix the problem.
>
> I certainly don't mind, though I'm quite a beginner when it comes to
> fonts and so far don't understand a great deal about many internals.
> To me much of this is simply voodoo.
>