[XeTeX] Microtype and Junicode
I've been fiddling with a microtype configuration for Junicode. Right now it's very simple, dealing only with character protrusion and not covering a vast number of characters. If anyone's interested in trying it out and making suggestions, here is the current version: http://faculty.virginia.edu/OldEnglish/secret/mt-Junicode.cfg It will work with the version of XeLaTeX in TexLive 2010, and with the preliminary version of microtype here: http://xetex.tk/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page You can just put the mt-Junicode.cfg file in the current working directory, and XeLaTeX will find it. Thanks, Peter -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Bold unit vectors
Hi,
Unicode 6.0.0, chapter 15
(http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.0.0/ch15.pdf) reveals some
information:
Unicode does provide \imath and \jmath symbols (u+1d6a4 und u+1d6a5),
but these are part of the regular, italic Latin math alphabet, so any
markup such as \mathbf will be lost on them. [In difference to the usual
TeX-behavior of \imath and \jmath]
But Unicode also specifies, that \imath and \jmath need not be used in
simple cases, since \hat i should yield a dotless i with a circumflex on
top. [i and j have the Soft_Dotted property]
\imath and \jmath are provided for cases, in which the \hat (or other
diacritical marks) spans more than a single letter, such as
\widehat{a+i}=\hat a+\hat i
I still don't understand, why this equation couldn't possibly be bold,
but Unicode only provides for regular italic.
So in your case, \mathbf{\hat i}, \hat\mathbf{i} (with unicode-math) or
\hat 𝒊 [u+1d48a] should yield the desired result, but it doesn't (at
least with me).
bye
Toscho
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Bold unit vectors
Ross, Because there is no need for it. When the vectors (bold) i, j, k are defined to be the standard basis vectors, then they are already unit vectors. Putting a hat over them is quite superfluous. That there is no easy way to do this in Unicode is surely indicative that standard usage does not require it, so you should be discouraged from attempting to do so. Somewhat off-topic, but math notations cannot follow strict rules and you may want a hat over any i or j -- perhaps a special basis (eg, a rotating one). You can find the hat (with the dot) for example in Schaum's Continuum Mechanics, by Mase. Redundancy, when consistency is also important, is not always a bad thing. Regards Javier -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
