On 07/13/2011 04:15 PM, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
Did my version not work for you? I had no problems to compare your
two fonts with it?
With a bit of hacking (mostly adjusting for unicode-math versions),
I managed to get it working, but I decided to generalize it a bit.
So here's the version I
On 07/12/2011 02:23 PM, Will Robertson wrote:
On 06/07/2011, at 3:41 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
I could use \setmathfont for each individual character, but then it
takes ages to compile.
Sorry for the slow reply.
Do the characters need to actually be set up for math use?
For situations like
I already forwarded your patch to Karl (not sure if he is following this list).
He can at least get it into the texlive repository, even if no one else but
Jonathan himself could get it into the xetex repository.
In any case: Thank you very much for finally resolving this issue,
which has been
On 12/27/2010 08:37 AM, R (Chandra) Chandrasekhar wrote:
A xetex bug report has been filed at:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=3145819group_id=194926atid=951385
I have verified the issue on my machine, where I have both a 32-bit
and 64-bit binary of xetex running on a 64-bit
If you get Q″ instead of P′ with XeTeX, you likely have multiple
different versions of the Asana-Math font on your disk somewhere
(possibly TTF and OTF at the same time).
This is known bug with XeTeX, and the best solution is to make sure
you have only one version of a font.
Regards, Ulrik
I can confirm that the problem exists in LuaLaTeX, but not in XeLaTeX,
so I would attribute the problem to the latest update of luaotfload,
which was updated from 1.18 to 1.19 today. Khaled, can you check?
Regards, Ulrik
- Original Nachricht
Von: Joel C. Salomon
I've tried manually undoing the change in luaotfload, but it didn't help,
so I'm no longer sure about my attribution of the problem to luaotfload.
It could equally well be caused by some other recent updates in TL,
such as fontspec, unicode-math or expl3. Will, could you check?
Regards, Ulrik
Hi all,
I can confirm that the problem goes away, if I restore the backup
of the previous version of expl3:
tlmgr restore expl3 19446
Please, somebody figure out why the update in expl3 broke
temporariy catcode changes in unicode-math.
Regards, Ulrik
- Original Nachricht
Von:
On 08/17/2010 04:32 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote:
Likely XeTeX does not check this parameter at all and resorts to some
hard coded default rule thickness.
No, that cannot be the reason. I know for sure that XeTeX does load some
(but not all) of the OpenType font parameters and maps them to TeX
On 08/17/2010 10:12 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote:
Hmm, thinking a bit more, this is likely to break legacy math control
sequences that has no equivalent in unicode-math yet, which will
currently just grap a glyph from CM, more seriously, it will break
\overbrace and likes since XeTeX support seems
Hi,
the funny thing is: If you don't use anything special in your documents,
you don't have to learn anything if you want to switch.
You can use exactly the same input with both LuaLaTeX and XeLaTeX,
but the output may be slightly different due to implementation differences
(or due to the
Hi,
I tested it with both XeLaTeX and LuaLaTeX (both from TL2010 pretest).
In short, the problem only occurs in XeLaTeX, but not in LuaLaTeX,
despite using the same macro packages and fonts for both engines.
I do not really understand the problem with the fraction rule thickness.
It probably
Hi Peter,
The segfault did occur with the latest XeTeX version 0.9997.4.
Updating from 0.9997.3 to 0.9997.4 changed it from segfaulting
immediately when loading unciode-math to segfaulting only in
certain situation, depending on what kind of formulas you typeset.
with fontconfig-2.7.3
Hi Peter,
I had posted my configuration in an earlier message:
http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2010-July/026654.html
$ xetex --version
XeTeX 3.1415926-2.2-0.9997.4 (TeX Live 2010)
kpathsea version 6.0.0
Copyright 2010 SIL International and Jonathan Kew.
There is NO warranty. Redistribution of
On 06/05/2010 07:24 PM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
If so, to what extent would this make XITS obsolete?
Depends how good a job they do :)
And whether the current STIX release schedule is reliable. Judging
from past results, it is altogether possible that v1.1 won't be
ready for release for half a
On 06/05/2010 08:54 PM, George N. White III wrote:
STIX is a very ambitious project for a group (scientific and technical
publishers), some who have suffered financially since the project started.
I think the technical work is a very minor portion of the overall effort (e.g.,
getting the
16 matches
Mail list logo
