[XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Khaled Hosny khaledhosny at eglug.org
Tue Jul 31 16:09:18 CEST 2012

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:54:29PM +0100, Jonathan Kew wrote:
> On 31/7/12 14:36, mskala at ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
> >On Tue, 31 Jul 2012, Jonathan Kew wrote:
> >>On 31/7/12 13:26, mskala at ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
> >>>There's the rub.  Non-Latin scripts are a big part of the constituency of
> >>>XeTeX.  I routinely have to manually activate Korean-specific OpenType
> >>>features that are specified to be default but that XeTeX/fontspec doesn't
> >>>activate by default, just to get acceptable output in Korean at all.
> >>
> >>Which specific features are you referring to here? Maybe we can get this
> >>improved...
> >
> >ccmp - glyph (de)composition; and ljmo, vjmo, and tjmo - lead, vowel, and
> >tail jamo shaping.  It's possible that ccmp may already be default, and my
> >own application doesn't actually need tjmo, but both should be turned on
> >for Korean when available.
> Hmm, I thought these would be active if you set "script=hang" (plain
> xetex) or [Script=Hangul] (xelatex+fontspec) in the font
> declaration. But on taking a quick look at the code in
> XeTeXOTLayoutEngine.cpp, I think it's broken: it incorrectly sends
> Hangul to the same code path as Han. :( Sorry - that's a bug!

What is the difference between XeTeXHanLayoutEngine and ICU's
HanOpenTypeLayoutEngine? In other words, would it be enough to just use
ICU's Hangul engine, or there are adjustments needed?


More information about the XeTeX mailing list