Re: [XeTeX] Off topic (interesting) question
On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 6:23 AM Apostolos Syropoulos via XeTeX < xetex@tug.org> wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > Many readers of this mailing list are > native English language speakers and > the following question is for them. > > Someone claimed that English people (I say > more generally English language speakers) > learn at school why you write history and > not istory. Since I do not know I'd this holds, I > am asking: Is this true? Does someone who > has graduated from high-school know the > reason why this happens? > American high-school I experienced was sadly lacking in the reasons behind the “facts” being crammed into young minds. -- George N. White III
Re: [XeTeX] Guaranteed Unicode replacement glyph in every TeX installation?
On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 at 11:20, Philip Taylor (HI) < p.tay...@hellenic-institute.uk> wrote: > Ulrike Fischer wrote: > > > With a current texlive you can use albatross to find out which fonts > on your system support this > >albatross -d 0xFFFD > > > I appreciate that this answer may have been targetted solely at Doug > McKenna, but in the general case it does not work. Here, using TeX Live > 2021 under Windows 7 Ultimate, the command "albatross" is unknown — > > Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601] > Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. > > d:\Users\Philip Taylor>albatross -d 0xFFFD > 'albatross' is not recognized as an internal or external command, > operable program or batch file. > > d:\Users\Philip Taylor> > > I have access to a couple Windows Systems (10 Enterprise and 10 Pro) with a full install of TeX Live 2021 with current updates. Both have "\bin\win32\albatross.exe" and the default Windows TL2021 fontconfig setup. Both work as advertised (but default Windows terminal doesn't display UniCode and the output seems to be a fixed width so truncates the font file pathnames). On linux the UniCode characters display properly. -- George N. White III
Re: [XeTeX] Guaranteed Unicode replacement glyph in every TeX installation?
On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 22:46, Doug McKenna wrote: > Using XeTeX, I want to typeset a LaTeX document into a PDF file. The > LaTeX source code in UTF-8 > expressly includes the Unicode Replacement character (� = U+FFFD) (a black > diamond with a > question mark in it). > > I want to typeset it in this single document using a monospaced font in > one place, and in another > place in a variable-width font. > > I understand that XeTeX can take advantage of one's system's installed > fonts, but my LaTeX file > is being generated by another program that doesn't know what those fonts > are or what glyphs > they support. I simply want to guarantee that the fonts used are always > available when processing > that LaTeX file. > > I also understand that it's possible to synthesize the glyph graphically > without using a font, but I'd > rather not go that route. > > So ... What fixed-width and variable-width OpenType (or other) fonts, if > any, are always distributed > with TeX or TeXLive or whatever that one can rely upon to be available for > placing this particular > glyph in a final PDF file? What would be the correct incantation to doing > so? > 0xFFFD should be in any mainstream general use OpenType font. It might be better to ask which OT fonts to avoid due to low quality, bugs, lack of ongoing support, etc. There has been a lot of churn in the available fonts over the years, so the answer may be different if you need fonts that can be expected to have long-term support and availability. -- George N. White III
Re: [XeTeX] Adobe PDF, Adobe Acrobat/Reader, Microsoft Word, XeTeX, and (x)dvipdfm(x).
On Fri, 28 May 2021 at 08:45, Philip Taylor wrote: > Ulrike Fischer wrote: > > use > > pdfclose --help > > It will tell you how to setup a DDE-name. They change every year. I > have currently AcroviewR20 > > > I use AcroViewR21, after updating AdobeReader DC this year. > Thank you Ulrike — in fact, I had just done that, but I learned as a > side-effect that "only documents opened by `pdfopen' can be closed by > `pdfclose'", which is something of a bummer in that almost all of my PDFs > will have been opened either by the (x)dvipdfm(x) back-end of XeTeX, or by > TeXworks ... > I use it mainly to run test cases in batch scripts. If you are running TeX from an editor, you might be able to hack the configuration to run a cmd file or otherwise bracket the TeX program with the pdfclose/pdfopen commands. > -- > *Philip Taylor* > -- George N. White III
Re: [XeTeX] Adobe PDF, Adobe Acrobat/Reader, Microsoft Word, XeTeX, and (x)dvipdfm(x).
On Thu, 27 May 2021 at 14:21, Philip Taylor wrote: > Over the past couple of days, I have made a substantial number of small > changes > to an MS Word document; on each occasion, as well as saving in MS Word > format > (.docx) I have also saved the document as Adobe PDF (.pdf). In the course > of so doing, > I have realised that MS Word can instruct Adobe Acrobat (and probably Adobe > Reader) > to close the PDF and then re-open it once the changes have been made. Is > there any > reason why the (x)dvipdfm(x) back-end to XeTeX cannot [be enhanced to] do > the same ? > Unlike UNIX-based OS's, Windows has problems writing to files that are open in another program, so Windows editors and AcroRead support "DynamicDataExchange" which allows a program that wants to write a PDF to ask AcroRead to close, and then open the file after it has been written. WinEDT can be configured to close the Adobe PDF viewer so that TeX software can write a new PDF. On Windows, TeX Live provides pdfopen and pdfclose programs (I think originally from fptex) that are useful in scripts (to bracket programs that create a pdf file): > type sample2e.cmd pdfclose sample2e.pdf lualatex sample2e pdfopen sample2e.pdf -- George N. White III
Re: [XeTeX] Color changing under graphic inclusion with graphicx
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 at 08:44, Philip Taylor
wrote:
> [Just realised that the XeTeX list should have been cc'd, so doing so now
> and will forward Paulo's original images as attachments]
>
> Philip Taylor wrote:
>
> Ulrike Fischer wrote:
>
> I can't reproduce your problem with the files you provided.
>
> How do you compile? Which TeX-System do you have? And which viewer
> do you use to view the pdf? Can you provide the pdf you get?
>
>
>
> For me (Windows 7 64-bit Enterprise, TeX Live 2020), PdfLaTeX does *not*
> shew the problem whilst XeLaTeX does. The artifacts are more visible in
> the TeXworks previewer than in Adobe Acrobat CC, but are nonetheless
> visible in the latter.
>
> *Philip Taylor*
>
> **
>
> I have (a couple) of PNG images with a background color of, for example,
> RGB(80,64,83), that when placed on a page of the same background color with
> {graphicx} -- they show a distinct tonality against the background -- which
> is of the same color.
>
>
> \documentclass{report}
>
> \usepackage{xcolor}
> \definecolor{bgcolor}{RGB}{80,64,83}
>
> \usepackage{graphicx}
> \pagestyle{empty}
>
> \begin{document}
>
> \pagecolor{bgcolor}
> \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{A.png}
> \quad
> \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{B.png}
>
> \medskip
>
> \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{A-gimp.png}
> \quad
> \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{B-gimp.png}
>
> \end{document}
>
>
>
PNG supports color management, so the appearance may not match that of the
raw (uncorrected) RGB values
PNG 1.2 Color Appendix
<http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/spec/1.2/PNG-ColorAppendix.html>.
--
George N. White III
Re: XeLaTeX under Win10
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 22:41, George N. White III wrote: > On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 06:35, Zdenek Wagner > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Windows may need an action to make the fonts work. The manual contains >> chapter "Post-install actions". I am not a Windows user so that I >> cannot be more specific but this should be the first text to read. >> >> > Unfortunately, this text says little about Windows: > > In 3.4.4 System font configuration for XeTEX and LuaTEX we have: > > "On Windows, fonts shipped with TEX Live are automatically made available > to XeTEX by font > name." This wasn't true for me, but I install TL on linux with the > addition of win32 binaries and > mount the directory on Wiindows (currently using NFS). > > There are a couple generated fontconfig files in " > .../texlive/2019/fonts/conf". There is > "fonts.conf" with linux paths as well as "c:/windows/fonts" and " > texlive-fontconfig.conf" > for use with linux. "fc-cache" fails because it doesn't find the > configuration file. There > are two variables that should allow fontconfig tools to find the conf file: > > >kpsewhich -expand-var=$FONTCONFIG_FILE > fonts.conf > > >kpsewhich -expand-var=$FONTCONFIG_PATH > N:/texlive/2019/texmf-var/fonts/conf > > Since these don't seem to work, I created a "C:\Users\\.fonts.conf" > from the > above "fonts.conf" with windows paths and set the "FONTCONFIG_FILE" > environment variable to the full path of the new file: > > >kpsewhich -expand-var=$FONTCONFIG_FILE > c:/Users//.fonts.conf > > With this change, "fc-cache" runs and I get both texlive and Windows > fonts in xelatex documents. > Looks like fontconfig on Windows has a problem with the texmf.cnf provided > settings., but perhaps > this stems from trying to have one install shared between linux and > windows. > I tried adjusting the FONTCONFIG_FILE and FONTCONFIG_PATH variables in $SELFAUTOPARENT/texmf.cnf, but the changes aren't shown by kpsewhich, so it appears that it is necessary to set FONTCONFIG_FILE in the environment. > > >> Zdeněk Wagner >> http://ttsm.icpf.cas.cz/team/wagner.shtml >> http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz >> >> út 12. 3. 2019 v 5:19 odesílatel Taylor, P napsal: >> > >> > No problems using TL 2018 under Windows 7, Apostolos, but never tried >> Windows 10 (nor have I any wish to). Can you forward detailed error >> message(s), please ? >> > Philip Taylor >> > >> > Apostolos Syropoulos wrote: >> > >> > Hello, >> > >> > A friend of mine tried to use XeLaTeX >> > under Win10. He tried TeXLive 2018 and >> > MikTeX. The problem is that the system >> > cannot find the fonts that are installed in >> > the system folder c:/windows/fonts >> > Is this normal or is there a "hack" to solve >> > this problem? >> > I am using Solaris... so I cannot provide >> > much feedback... >> > >> > >> >> > > -- > George N. White III > > -- George N. White III
Re: XeLaTeX under Win10
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 06:35, Zdenek Wagner wrote: > Hi, > > Windows may need an action to make the fonts work. The manual contains > chapter "Post-install actions". I am not a Windows user so that I > cannot be more specific but this should be the first text to read. > > Unfortunately, this text says little about Windows: In 3.4.4 System font configuration for XeTEX and LuaTEX we have: "On Windows, fonts shipped with TEX Live are automatically made available to XeTEX by font name." This wasn't true for me, but I install TL on linux with the addition of win32 binaries and mount the directory on Wiindows (currently using NFS). There are a couple generated fontconfig files in " .../texlive/2019/fonts/conf". There is "fonts.conf" with linux paths as well as "c:/windows/fonts" and " texlive-fontconfig.conf" for use with linux. "fc-cache" fails because it doesn't find the configuration file. There are two variables that should allow fontconfig tools to find the conf file: >kpsewhich -expand-var=$FONTCONFIG_FILE fonts.conf >kpsewhich -expand-var=$FONTCONFIG_PATH N:/texlive/2019/texmf-var/fonts/conf Since these don't seem to work, I created a "C:\Users\\.fonts.conf" from the above "fonts.conf" with windows paths and set the "FONTCONFIG_FILE" environment variable to the full path of the new file: >kpsewhich -expand-var=$FONTCONFIG_FILE c:/Users//.fonts.conf With this change, "fc-cache" runs and I get both texlive and Windows fonts in xelatex documents. Looks like fontconfig on Windows has a problem with the texmf.cnf provided settings., but perhaps this stems from trying to have one install shared between linux and windows. > Zdeněk Wagner > http://ttsm.icpf.cas.cz/team/wagner.shtml > http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz > > út 12. 3. 2019 v 5:19 odesílatel Taylor, P napsal: > > > > No problems using TL 2018 under Windows 7, Apostolos, but never tried > Windows 10 (nor have I any wish to). Can you forward detailed error > message(s), please ? > > Philip Taylor > > > > Apostolos Syropoulos wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > A friend of mine tried to use XeLaTeX > > under Win10. He tried TeXLive 2018 and > > MikTeX. The problem is that the system > > cannot find the fonts that are installed in > > the system folder c:/windows/fonts > > Is this normal or is there a "hack" to solve > > this problem? > > I am using Solaris... so I cannot provide > > much feedback... > > > > > > -- George N. White III
Re: [XeTeX] "typeset by bidi" message
On 27 January 2018 at 16:32, Peter Wilson
wrote:
> I think that the "Typeset by the bidi package" message is much too modest.
> It should read something along the lines "Typeset by the bidi package
> developed by Vafa Khalighi for over 12 years without any funding or
> donations." In fact I think that every class/package used in a document
> should typeset similar wording about itself and its provenance on the top
> of the first page of any (All)TeX document. Many classes and packages have
> been developed over many more than 12 years, particularly TeX and LaTeX.
>
> Peter W.
>
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colophon
<https://www.google.ca/search?q=colophone&rlz=1C1EJFA_enCA773CA775&oq=colophone&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4297j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#>
1.
<https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7fBpBzP-DnsJ:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colophon+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca>
2.
<https://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1C1EJFA_enCA773CA775&q=related:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colophon+colophon&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi19J-k7frYAhVIXKwKHfCFDQ4QHwhdMAQ>
Dec 29, 2017 - Definition of *colophon*. 1 : an inscription at the end of a
book or manuscript usually with facts about its production.
I'd rather that more documents provide a useful colophone. "Typeset by the
bidi package ..." logically
belongs in the colophone.
It would be useful to have a supported, standard method for packages to
add/suggest entries to the colophon.
It would also be useful to have "Supported by: " entries in catalogs (for
bidi: "Supported by: author").
That this is primarily a human issue has been pointed out -- many people
contribute to TeX/LaTeX for small
rewards, often on their own resources and sometimes against their bosses'
ideas of how time should be spent
("MS Word is good enough").
It would be nice to see a system of small awards given to individuals who
have made significant contributions
(as determined by a small panel of judges based on open nominations). The
publicity for TeX and friends
might persuade some bosses that time spent on TeX-related work has value.
[...]
--
George N. White III
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] How to make XeTeX find the texmf.cnf file?
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Herbert Schulz wrote: > > > On Nov 13, 2016, at 7:16 PM, Christian Boitet > wrote: > > > > > > I just added to my profile: > > setenv PATH "$PATH":"/usr/local/texlive/2016" > > > > If I understand well, it should solve the problem... but it does not at > the moment. > > > > Howdy, > > NO. The path needs to point to the binaries not the base of the > distribution tree. > > Try doing > > setenv PATH "/Library/TeX/texbin:$PATH" > > and see if that works. > > Good Luck, > > Herb Schulz > (herbs at wideopenwest dot com) > The OP is using macOS, where the default user shell is bash. Normally, setenv is used with csh. If the OP is using csh (not unexpected for a long-time TeX user) there may be some obscure configuration glitches. Here, a tcsh user gets normal behaviour from MacTeX and macports' texlive. Macports' also provides TeXShop (versions 3.75 or 2.47). Lots of moving parts and very little hard data here. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] How to finish the installation of XeTeX 0.99993 (on MacOS)?
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Herb Schulz wrote: > Howdy, > > I'd expect that you TeX Live distribution installed by MacTeX is perfectly > fine. I have no idea how you remove the one installed by MacPorts. Follow > Dick Koch's advice to check the MacTeX installed version. If that is ok > following my advice should fix things. > Herb's advice should work in systems that are close to Apple standard configuration, but some applications add strange stuff to the startup scripts, so it is highly advisable that users to read up on bash to understand why the suggested change should work. If it doesn't work, post the result from "echo $PATH" in a terminal. Macports pulls in texlive during source installs if needed to format documentation. The problem is that macports also adds itself to the front of the PATH in one of the bash startup files. so the macports vrsion of TeX software get run by editors and IDE's that respect this setting. In most cases the simple fix is to add the MacTeX bin directory before the macports bin directory in this setting. This doesn't affect macports builds because builds use an adjusted PATH, not the user's default. It should be necessary or helpful to remove macorts' texlive as the problem will return the next time a package that formats documentation with a TeX program is installed from source. There are other programs that mess with the PATH, so it is best that the user learn a bit about the bash startup files so they are able to manage this properly for their needs. > > If the MacTeX version isn't there we'll need more information about how > you installed it; e.g., is the install on a fresh version of Sierra or not, > etc. > > Good Luck, > Herb Schulz > > > On Nov 13, 2016, at 5:35 PM, Christian Boitet > wrote: > > > > G'day,13/11/16 > > > > Vielen Dank Herb für die schnelle Antwort. > > > > Ja zur Frage. > > > > (Ich schrieb "I reinstalled MacLive, and then MacTeX-2016, which are > supposed to come with XeTeX. No way. > > The message is always the same...") > > > > Maybe I should try to uninstall all TeX-related files and reinstall, but > it is too complex to do it by hand. The installers are supposed to replace > what should be replaced, but obviously don't erase all what should be > erased. > > > > Any hint of a "total clean uninstaller" for TeX and related > files/programs? > > > > Best, > > > > Xan (Grenoble) > > > > > >> Le 13 nov. 2016 à 23:06, Herb Schulz a écrit : > >> > >> Howdy, > >> > >> Sorry for the top post. > >> > >> Have you installed MacTeX? It installs a full TeX Live distribution > when includes xe(la)tex. > >> > >> Good Luck, > >> Herb Schulz > >> > >>> On Nov 13, 2016, at 12:33 PM, Christian Boitet < > christian.boi...@imag.fr> wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear TeX fans,13/11/16 > >>> > >>> it is the first time I post anything on this list: I have used LaTeX > for lectures, slides, conference papers, etc. for many years, I have a > complete reference book, and always found answers in it or on the Web. > >>> This time, I am quite stuck! One Japanese colleague has used XeTeX on > her Mac and passed me her files to do some debugging concerning the > bibliography. > >>> > >>> I am using TeXShop (latest version), I reinstalled MacLive, and then > MacTeX-2016, which are supposed to come with XeTeX. No way. > >>> The message is always the same. Trying to complie from TeXShop: > >>> > >>> kpathsea: Running mktexfmt xelatex.fmt > >>> warning: Configuration file texmf.cnf not found! Searched these > directories: > >>> /opt/local/bin:/opt/local:/opt:/opt/local/bin/share/ > texmf-local/web2c:/opt/local/share/texmf-local/web2c:/opt/ > share/texmf-local/web2c:/opt/local/bin/texmf-local/web2c:/ > opt/local/texmf-local/web2c:/opt/texmf-local/web2c:/opt/ > local/bin/share/texmf/web2c:/opt/local/share/texmf/web2c:/ > opt/share/texmf/web2c:/opt/local/bin/texmf/web2c:/opt/ > local/texmf/web2c:/opt/texmf/web2c:/.:/opt/local/share/ > texmf/web2c:/opt/local/share/texmf/web2c > >>> Trying to proceed... > >>> /opt/local/bin/mktexfmt: line 336: /texconfig/tcfmgr: No such file or > directory > >>> fmtutil: config file `fmtutil.cnf' not found. > >>> I can't find the format file `xelatex.fmt'! > >>> > >>> > >>> Or, tryi > > > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] How to finish the installation of XeTeX 0.99993 (on MacOS)?
complete directory (transformed in an .app > file -- a "package")? Some of the executables in the texk>kpathsea > directory? > And what is "a normal place for web2c" ??? > > I tried hard but did not find any tutorial or online discussion on that > matter. Please help! > > Thanks in advance, > Xan > This all has to do with the bash shell configuration -- something many macOS users rarely encounter. You need to look into the startup configuration for bash in a bash manual. The macports changes are clearly marked, and the manual will explain how to adjust them for your needs. > > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > > -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Joseph Wright < joseph.wri...@morningstar2.co.uk> wrote: > On 02/07/2015 05:54, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: > > If MD5 is necessary for compatibility with some existing standard, so be > > it; but it's not secure anymore and it shouldn't be used in any new > design > > where there's a concern about possible deliberate tampering, as opposed > to > > accidental errors. SHA1 is deprecated, too. I think SHA256 is the > > current "best practice." > > Depends what you are using it for. Collisions are possible in MD5 so > it's no longer suitable for cryptographic applications. Here, however, > we are talking about avoiding the more prosaic issues of people having > not-quite matching sources. (We are *not* talking about signing > documents.) For the use case I have in mind MD5 will happily do the job. > Maybe your use case is enough at present, but the other use cases (some already mentioned) may become important in the future. It makes sense to implement MD5 in a way that anticipates future additions/enhancements. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] biblatex and xetex issue
1 L3 Token lists >l3seq.sty2013/07/28 v4581 L3 Sequences and stacks >l3int.sty2013/07/28 v4581 L3 Integers > l3quark.sty2013/07/21 v4564 L3 Quarks >l3prg.sty2013/07/28 v4581 L3 Control structures > l3clist.sty2013/07/28 v4581 L3 Comma separated lists > l3token.sty2013/07/28 v4581 L3 Experimental token manipulation > l3prop.sty2013/07/28 v4581 L3 Property lists >l3msg.sty2013/07/28 v4581 L3 Messages > l3file.sty2013/07/28 v4581 L3 File and I/O operations > l3skip.sty2013/07/28 v4581 L3 Dimensions and skips > l3keys.sty2013/07/28 v4581 L3 Experimental key-value interfaces > l3fp.sty2013/07/09 v4521 L3 Floating points >l3box.sty2013/07/28 v4581 L3 Experimental boxes > l3coffins.sty2012/09/09 v4212 L3 Coffin code layer > l3color.sty2012/08/29 v4156 L3 Experimental color support > l3luatex.sty2013/07/28 v4581 L3 Experimental LuaTeX-specific functions > l3candidates.sty2013/07/24 v4576 L3 Experimental additions to l3kernel >ifpdf.sty2011/01/30 v2.3 Provides the ifpdf switch (HO) > xparse.sty2013/07/28 v4582 L3 Experimental document command parser > fontspec-patches.sty2013/05/20 v2.3c Font selection for XeLaTeX and > LuaLaTe > X > fixltx2e.sty2008/08/10 v1.1mf fixes to LaTeX > fontspec-xetex.sty2013/05/20 v2.3c Font selection for XeLaTeX and > LuaLaTeX > fontenc.sty > eu1enc.def2010/05/27 v0.1h Experimental Unicode font encodings > eu1lmr.fd2009/10/30 v1.6 Font defs for Latin Modern > xunicode.sty2011/09/09 v0.981 provides access to latin accents and > many oth > er characters in Unicode lower plane > eu1lmss.fd2009/10/30 v1.6 Font defs for Latin Modern > graphicx.sty1999/02/16 v1.0f Enhanced LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR) > keyval.sty1999/03/16 v1.13 key=value parser (DPC) > graphics.sty2009/02/05 v1.0o Standard LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR) > trig.sty1999/03/16 v1.09 sin cos tan (DPC) > graphics.cfg2010/04/23 v1.9 graphics configuration of TeX Live >xetex.def2013/04/29 v0.96 LaTeX color/graphics driver for XeTeX > (RRM/JK) > > fontspec.cfg > xltxtra.sty2010/09/20 v0.5e Improvements for the "XeLaTeX" format > ifluatex.sty2010/03/01 v1.3 Provides the ifluatex switch (HO) > ifxetex.sty2010/09/12 v0.6 Provides ifxetex conditional > realscripts.sty2013/03/18 v0.3c Access OpenType subscripts and > superscripts > > metalogo.sty2010/05/29 v0.12 Extended TeX logo macros >babel.sty2013/05/16 v3.9f The Babel package > english.ldf2012/08/20 v3.3p English support from the babel system > frenchb.ldf2013/07/06 v2.6e French support from the babel system > scalefnt.sty > biblatex.sty2013/07/15 v2.7a programmable bibliographies (PK/JW/AB) > biblatex2.sty2013/07/15 v2.7a programmable bibliographies (biber) > (PK/JW/AB > ) > etoolbox.sty2011/01/03 v2.1 e-TeX tools for LaTeX > kvoptions.sty2011/06/30 v3.11 Key value format for package options (HO) > ltxcmds.sty2011/11/09 v1.22 LaTeX kernel commands for general use (HO) > kvsetkeys.sty2012/04/25 v1.16 Key value parser (HO) > infwarerr.sty2010/04/08 v1.3 Providing info/warning/error messages (HO) > etexcmds.sty2011/02/16 v1.5 Avoid name clashes with e-TeX commands (HO) > logreq.sty2010/08/04 v1.0 xml request logger > logreq.def2010/08/04 v1.0 logreq spec v1.0 > ifthen.sty2001/05/26 v1.1c Standard LaTeX ifthen package (DPC) > url.sty2006/04/12 ver 3.3 Verb mode for urls, etc. > blx-dm.def > authoryear-comp.dbx > authoryear.dbx > biblatex-dm.cfg > blx-compat.def2013/07/15 v2.7a biblatex compatibility (PK/JW/AB) > biblatex.def > blx-natbib.def2013/07/15 v2.7a biblatex compatibility (PK/JW/AB) > standard.bbx2013/07/15 v2.7a biblatex bibliography style (PK/JW/AB) > authoryear.bbx2013/07/15 v2.7a biblatex bibliography style (PK/JW/AB) > authoryear-comp.cbx2013/07/15 v2.7a biblatex citation style (PK/JW/AB) > biblatex.cfg > csquotes.sty2011/10/22 v5.1d context-sensitive quotations > csquotes.def2011/10/22 v5.1d csquotes generic definitions > csquotes.cfg > filecontents.sty2011/10/08 v1.3 Create an external file from within a > LaTeX > document > french.lbx2013/07/15 v2.7a biblatex localization (PK/JW/AB) >t3cmr.fd2001/12/31 TIPA font definitions >Xtest.bbl > eu1lmtt.fd2009/10/30 v1.6 Font defs for Latin Modern > *** > > for the version list. > > Good Luck, > > Herb Schulz > (herbs at wideopenwest dot com) > > > > > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX 0.9999.0 released
> * Support input pipes, in line with other engines. > > * Drop support for using “()” as font names quotes since it was causing > file > names with parenthesis not to be found. > > * Fix “\show” with characters outside BMP. > > * Print the actual character instead of hex code for characters outside BMP > with “\show”, “\meaning”, “\showlists” and missing char log messages. > > * Fix letterspacing if zero width glyphs. > > * Try to get cap and x height from OS/2 table first. > > * Reject bitmap only fonts. > > * Include build date in “--version” output. > > > Regards, > Khaled > > > P.S. Since I never announced the 0.9998 release (TeX Live 2012), I'm > posting the changes here for reference. > > == > XeTeX 0.9998 was released 20120708 > == > > * Fix mismatch between fonts loaded by XeTeX and xdvipdfmx when multiple > versions of the font exist. > > * Fix “\the\textfont” with families > 15 > > * Extend “\fam” to accept family number up to 255. > > * Fix build on Mac OS 10.7 > > OpenType math: > > * Fix displacement of big operator's limits when > “DisplayOperatorMinHeight” is > higher than the size of the big operator. > > * Fix too wide accents over accentees that has sub/superscript. > > * Support extensible accents for “\overbrace” etc. > > * Always take math constants from current font, fixes multiple math > discrepancies. > > * Honor relevant math constants when positioning sub/superscripts. > > * Honor “AccentBaseHeight” when placing accents. > > * Support “fixed” and “bottom” keywords in “\XeTeXmathaccent” for non > growing > and bottom accents, respectively. > > * Fix horizontal placement of of accents over single letters to honor > their top > accent position value. > > * Fix vertical placement of sub/superscripts of single letters to not be > treated as non-single letters. > > * Support proper positioning of nested accents. > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX 0.9999.0 released
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Simon Cozens wrote: > On 14/03/2013 01:03, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > The binaries for many platforms (windows excluded at the moment) have > > been submitted to TLContrib now. You can use > > tlmgr --repository http://tlcontrib.metatex.org/2012 update --all > > for example. > > OS X packages work beautifully. > Which OS X version please? -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX 0.9999.0 released
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Zdenek Wagner wrote: > 2013/3/13 Mojca Miklavec : > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:40 PM, George N. White III wrote: > >> On RHEL 5.9, TLContrib packages don't work: > >> > >> xetex: symbol lookup error: xetex: undefined symbol: > _ZGVNSt7collateIwE2idE > >> luatex: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.7' not found (required by > luatex) > >> luatex: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.11' not found (required by > >> luatex) > >> > >> RHEL 5 (GLIBC 2.5) dates from 2005 and was expected to be in service 5 > years > >> but is still widely used (7 is the new 5). RHEL 5 can't readily build > the > >> new xetex as the tools are too old, but it looks like RHEL 6 (due to > replace > >> RHEL 5 "real soon now" at many "7 is 5" sites) has GLIBC 2.12, so if the > >> TLcontrib packages are a guide, should support TL2013: > > > > Thanks a lot for the feedback. I guess that this is about x86_64-linux? > > > > The hardware being used for compiling XeTeX is different than the one > > that will be used for building TeX Live 2013, so there is no need to > > panic yet ;) > > > > I just need a volunteer or a virtual machine to build against an older > glibc. > > > I have just looked at CentOS 5.5 which should be based on RHEL 5.5. It > contains /usr/lib64/libc.co and /usr/lib/libc.so, I do not see any > other libc.so.* under /usr > > I can try to build XeTeX on it. > I did try building XeTeX on RHEL 5.9, but tools like autoconf are very old versions, so be prepared for a long session of upgrading tools. Is it realistic to expect that TL2013 binaries that use opentype math work on GLIBC 2.5 systems? I won't get back to the RHEL 5.9 machine until April, by which time I'm hoping we will upgrade to RHEL 6 (waiting on a vendor to support RHEL 6). -- George N. White III -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX 0.9999.0 released
On RHEL 5.9, TLContrib packages don't work: xetex: symbol lookup error: xetex: undefined symbol: _ZGVNSt7collateIwE2idE luatex: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.7' not found (required by luatex) luatex: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.11' not found (required by luatex) RHEL 5 (GLIBC 2.5) dates from 2005 and was expected to be in service 5 years but is still widely used (7 is the new 5). RHEL 5 can't readily build the new xetex as the tools are too old, but it looks like RHEL 6 (due to replace RHEL 5 "real soon now" at many "7 is 5" sites) has GLIBC 2.12, so if the TLcontrib packages are a guide, should support TL2013: On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Mojca Miklavec < mojca.miklavec.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Khaled Hosny wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I have just uploaded a beta release of 0..x series. > > > > The archive can be downloaded from SourceForge page: > > > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/xetex/files/source/ > > > > There have been quite some changes in this release, and testing is > > highly appreciated, the more testing the better, but please note that > > this is a beta release and should not be used in production > > environments. There are no pre-built binaries right now, but they should > > be available from TLContrib shortly. > > The binaries for many platforms (windows excluded at the moment) have > been submitted to TLContrib now. You can use > tlmgr --repository http://tlcontrib.metatex.org/2012 update --all > for example. > > Mojca > > > ---------- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Ubuntu and XeLaTeX
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Mojca Miklavec < mojca.miklavec.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:16 PM, BPJ wrote: > > On 2013-02-21 08:50, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > >> > >> The only thing that needs to be done is to replace > >> /usr/local/texlive/2012/bin//xetex > >> (and possibly xdvipdfmx) with the new version and remake the formats. > >> Path might vary depending on your installation. > > > > You mean that it's not enugh to put it somewhere else and have the system > > find it? > > You can put the binary *somewhere* else, but not *anywhere* else. TeX > is compiled in such a way that it searches for texmf.cnf in folders > that are relative to its location. It would probably work if you would > put it into > /usr/local/texlive/2012/bin/mypatchedbinaries/xetex > and add /usr/local/texlive/2012/bin/mypatchedbinaries to PATH. > > (For example, if TeX Live is installed in /usr/local/texlive/2012 then > adding the binary to $HOME/bin won't work, even if $HOME/bin is in > PATH, since the binary won't be able to find the corresponding configuration file.) > Correct. I often create /usr/local/texlive//bin/-l directories for "locally compiled" versions, and adjust the PATH accordingly when I want to use those versions.It is worth mentioning that the environment modules package makes it easy to adjust the environment (e.g., PATH) from the commandline, e.g., $ module swap TL TL-patched -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Ubuntu and XeLaTeX
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Daniel Greenhoe wrote: > I would like to try using Ubuntu on a laptop PC. Is there a stable > version of XeLaTeX available that can run on Ubuntu and that includes > Khaled's recent fix of the unicode-math underbrace problem? > You can't have a recent bug fix and stability at the same time. The fix is expected to be in TeX Live 2013, e.g., "Real soon now", but not soon enough for people trying to finish projects now. Fedora 18 is an unstable/experimental distro and already has, e.g., $ xelatex underbrace3 This is XeTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.5-0. (TeX Live 2013/dev) [...] and uncode-math.sty is v0.7a, but the output still exhibits the shifted underbrace bug. > I have little or no experience with Linux. Any other recommendations? > Many TeX developers use linux, as it is very friendly to development work. If you aren't using linux to build versions of "mission-critical" software without the bugs that affect you, you are missing the real benefits of linux. TeX Live doesn't need high-end graphics etc, so you probably don't need or want a cutting edge distro like Fedora 18. Look around for helpful linux users. The main distinction between distros is whether they use rpm or deb packages, so go with what the people around you are using. Ubuntu has LTS versions, but for your purposes it amounts to Debian with tail fins and chrome plating. Scientfic Linux is a free RHEL "clone" with rpm packages. > Many thanks in advance, > Dan > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Linux Libertine
I have TL2012 from svn installed and do not have bold italics in the test file. After you update the font caches, you can see which files are used: $ fc-list -v Linux\ Libertine\ O | grep file file: "/usr/local/texlive/2012/texmf-dist/fonts/opentype/public/libertineotf/LinLibertine_RBI.otf"(s) file: "/usr/local/texlive/2012/texmf-dist/fonts/opentype/public/libertine/LinLibertine530_R.otf"(s) file: "/usr/share/fonts/opentype/linux-libertine/LinLibertine_RZI.otf"(s) file: "/usr/local/texlive/2012/texmf-dist/fonts/opentype/public/libertineotf/LinLibertine_RZ.otf"(s) file: "/usr/share/fonts/opentype/linux-libertine/LinLibertine_RB.otf"(s) file: "/usr/local/texlive/2012/texmf-dist/fonts/opentype/public/libertine/LinLibertine530_RZI.otf"(s) file: "/usr/local/texlive/2012/texmf-dist/fonts/opentype/public/libertineotf/LinLibertine_RZI.otf"(s) file: "/usr/local/texlive/2012/texmf-dist/fonts/opentype/public/libertineotf/LinLibertine_RB.otf"(s) file: "/usr/share/fonts/opentype/linux-libertine/LinLibertine_RBI.otf"(s) file: "/usr/share/fonts/opentype/linux-libertine/LinLibertine_RZ.otf"(s) file: "/usr/local/texlive/2012/texmf-dist/fonts/opentype/public/libertineotf/LinLibertine_RI.otf"(s) file: "/usr/local/texlive/2012/texmf-dist/fonts/opentype/public/libertineotf/LinLibertine_R.otf"(s) file: "/usr/share/fonts/opentype/linux-libertine/LinLibertine_R.otf"(s) file: "/usr/local/texlive/2012/texmf-dist/fonts/opentype/public/libertine/LinLibertine530_RBI.otf"(s) file: "/usr/share/fonts/opentype/linux-libertine/LinLibertine_RI.otf"(s) file: "/usr/local/texlive/2012/texmf-dist/fonts/opentype/public/libertine/LinLibertine530_RZ.otf"(s) file: "/usr/local/texlive/2012/texmf-dist/fonts/opentype/public/libertine/LinLibertine530_RI.otf"(s) file: "/usr/local/texlive/2012/texmf-dist/fonts/opentype/public/libertine/LinLibertine530_RB.otf"(s) so there are some potential conflicts with the distro (Ubuntu 12.04) fonts, but only otf fonts. If I add the type1 font directories to my ~/.fonts.conf and update the caches, I do see the bold italic, and there are type1 fonts in the fc-list -v output. On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Arash Zeini wrote: > On 27 November 2012 12:18, Peter Dyballa wrote: > > > > Am 27.11.2012 um 11:56 schrieb Arash Zeini: > > > >> As I said the problems started with the > >> inclusion of the libertine- and biolinum-type1 packages. > > > > On Linux you have the libfontconfig based font service. It uses commands > like fc-cache, fc-list, etc. It has a configuration file named fonts.conf, > maybe located in /usr/local/etc/fonts. Documentation can be found in the > files fontconfig-user.html or fontconfig-user.pdf. What I'd recommend, > besides reading the documentation, is to find the cache directories of the > system and of you. The latter directory can by ~/.cache or ~/.fontconfig, > maybe with some version number (as in ~/.fontconfig-2.4). This should be > documented (set) in the fonts.conf or personal ~/.fonts.conf files. Then > delete all the cache files and run: > > > > sudo fc-cache -v# for the system > > fc-cache -v # for you > > > > Learn to check with the fc-* commands what fonts your service has, from > which font files they come, and which features the fonts provide! > > I have done this, but the problem persists. Were you suggesting that > taking the above steps could possibly solve the bold italics problem? > > >> And I have > >> now noticed that when I update TeXLive, I get an error message for > >> missing map files for biolinum and libertine type1 fonts. > > > > Xe(La)TeX (and LuaTeX) does not use MAP files. XeTeX asks a "font > service", that manages cache files of the installed fonts repository, to > give it a font (and LuaTeX uses its own cache file). So repairing the MAP > files (with pointers from strange or sick TeX font names to real font names > and font files) only helps pdfTeX (XeTeX and LuaTeX use the real font names > directly and need no mapping). > > I sort of understand this! The point I was trying to make, is that (1) > the problem started with the installation of libertine-type1, (2) > Khaled suggested in his post that "(Type1 fonts [are] being picked > instead of OpenType ones)". > > Arash > > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Is there an "include" difference between 0.9996 and -0.9998?
MiKTeX makes it simple to add as many extra private or local texmf trees as you want, using the "MiKTeX Options" GUI tool to configure additional "root" directories. For TeXLive, on which MacTeX is based, there are two predefined trees: TEXMFLOCAL and ~/texmf or ~/Library/texmf for MacTeX. If you want something different you have to edit a texmf.cnf file. On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Mike "Pomax" Kamermans < po...@nihongoresources.com> wrote: > On 11/23/2012 2:10 AM, Peter Dyballa wrote: > >> Mimic the layout of the TeX distribution in your private area! >> /usr/local/texlive/20XY/texmf-**dist/tex/latex corresponds with >> ~/Library/texmf/tex/latex. Create in ~/Library/texmf/tex/latex a directory >> mine or Pomax and put your STY files there. No maketexlsr is needed. As a >> test use kpsewhich to see whether it can find your files! >> > > But is that approach dependent on a *n*x environment, or will that also > work under the MiKTeX installation for Windows? > > - Mike > > > > --** > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > > http://tug.org/mailman/**listinfo/xetex<http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex> > -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] "Minimalist" TeX?
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:38 AM, C Y wrote: > I have compiled xetex from the latest Git sources on sourceforge, and the > build appears to have been successful. > > Does the sourceforge Git repo of xetex produce a working (albeit minimal) > TeX once compilation is complete? (It didn't seem to in my quick test, but > it's quite possible I didn't do something right environment wise...) If > not, is there documentation anywhere of what constitutes the minimal set of > files that will allow an average LaTeX document to be typeset? > > My interest is in building a "Minimalist" subset of TeX in situations where > a system installation isn't present, but I've not had much luck locating > documentation describing what constitutes a minimal-yet-functional subset of > the TeX Live distribution. Has anybody documented such a subset? There have been various attempts in the past, but to succeed you need pretty tight control over the documents (macro packages and fonts required). If done this a few times for "production" systems that needed to format a known set of documents. I just used the TL installer and selected the only the few packages I knew I needed, then added the few more that were required. Occasionally someone makes a change and I have to add another package, and I'm sure there is stuff that is never used. There is some overhead to using the TL package manager, but that is outweighed by the advantage of being able to easily make updates/additions. It is not so easy to discover that some previously required package is no longer being used. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Khaled Hosny wrote: > On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 04:25:21PM +1100, Vafa Khalighi wrote: >> XeTeX font support is heaps better and stable than what luaotfload package >> offers and I guess that is why many users still like using xetex instead >> luatex. I personally believe that it is a bad practice that luaotfload just >> copies ConTeXt code, it should not be deeply dependent on ConTeXt because >> Hans >> may want to try experimenting with some features today and next day he gets >> rid >> of them just like the recent updates of luaotfload that Khaled talked about >> it. >> I think, this is awful! What should users who used those features (and need >> it >> heavily in their daily typesetting tasks, do?). They wake up one day and >> suddenly see that yes, luaotfload does not provide the features they need. >> luaotfload needs to be written from scratch independent of any ConTeXt code. > > The situation is not as bad as you make it seems, what have gone is two > minor features that IMO was a mistake to provide them in the first > place, but since we are talking about a yet to be released version of > luaotfload, there might be an alternate solution at the time of release. > > Writing an OpenType layout engine is not a simple task, and you can > judge from the many years it toke FOSS community to have a really good > one, HarfBuzz (the name luaotfload is misleading, font loading is about > the easiest part of luaotfload, OpenType implementation is really what > matters.) If it were for me, I'd plug HarfBuzz into luatex proper and > call it a day, but this does not align well with the "design" principles > of luatex so it is unlikely to happen. If plugging harfbuzz into luatex does not require a huge effort, it could serve as bridge from xetex to luatex while a more principled design is being created. Principles are nice, and have benefits over the long haul, but in cases where the design is evolving it really helps to get an implementation into the hands of users and let them point out the areas where work is needed. > The main goal of luaotfload, besides having an OpenType engine for > lualatex, is too make sure we don't end up with two different OpenType > implementations for luatex, each broken in its own way. OpenType is such > a horribly documented "standard" that is there is no single > implementation of it that does not have its own share of bugs (it is > often not easy to tell if a bug is a bug or since the documentation are > so fuzzy in certain areas). The way to bring clarity in cases of fuzzy standards is for one implementation, perhaps harfbuzz-ng is a candidate, as the reference and try to match that behaviour. The reference implementation won't be perfect, but needs to be open to change as problems are identified. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Future state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: > Mu EUR 0,02 : > > Chris Travers wrote: > >> A couple things I'd point out. TeX makes it possible to create >> beautiful books. LaTeX makes it possible to create beautiful books >> easily. > > but encourages users to create ugly ones. > > Why do I say this ? Well, a user wishing to typeset a book > using TeX has to /think/, and, having thought, will almost certainly > come up with a better design than LaTeX offers out of the box. > > A LaTeX user, on the other hand, will -- until he or she becomes > sufficiently skilled and informed to know better -- almost certainly > just use one of the canned styles based on Computer Modern with > excessive white space that LaTeX provides by default. This is a key issue -- to get a larger pool of people passionate about making beautiful books you have to start by showing them the difference. I see many young people who are passionate about their clothing and am surprised at how many actually want to design their own clothes. Clothing designs can be viewed on TV, text artifacts not so much. Kids' school notebook doodles show something about their interests. When I was in school the boys doodled hot rods and girls horses, now I see doodles of clothing (girls) and characters for video games (boys). I wonder if part of the problem today is the sheer number of ways we make text artifacts. There are tweets, texting, email, blogs, web pages, essays and reports produced for schoolwork, then papers, manuals, reports, proposals, resumes, and for some, books. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Future state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:00 AM, William Adams wrote: > On Oct 28, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Dominik Wujastyk wrote: > >> Personally, I would not mind if XeTeX went into maintenance mode. I like >> such stability. It already has a great deal of functionality, probably >> enough to last me the rest of my writing career. I do take Vafa's point, >> though, that if future OS platforms break XeTeX, it would be nice to have >> someone fix things up. > > Here in the U.S., it's almost time for United Way payroll deduction > contributions to be allocated --- I've been donating to TUG for a couple of > years, but would be willing to direct my TUG contribution to XeTeX > maintenance if others would be similarly inclined. > Money can help, but unless very big piles of it are available, it is more critical to generate a passion for good typography in people who have the techical abilities needed for the work. I conjecture that the number of people with both the passion and abilities needed is currently empty. Clearly there are many current xetex users with the interest, and commercial software developers employ people to write code to render texts using the MS and Apple API's, so there are also people with the abilities. Some may not be able to contribute to xetex by the terms of their employment, and some whose passion lies with their employers products would not have considered contributing to xetex. Knuth has made many outstanding contributions, but not the least is to raise typography to the first rank of problems in computing. If you want to create a pool of people with a passion for computer typography, effort needs to go towards expanding awareness of Knuth's work in typography and issues that remain. To get things started, here is my list: 0. Why is Tex still necessary? My impression is that Knuth hoped to see his work used in more creative ways than TeX distros. 1. Knuth wanted to create beautiful books, yet many distinctly unbeautiful books are still being published. Lack of support for font design size, too similar fonts used for text and maths (e.g., same glyph for letter "a" and variable "a") contribute to lack of beauty. I'm reminded of Knuth's early paper in which he analyzed bugs in discarded decks of punched cards and found many examples of errors resulting from failure to apply well-known principles taught in into courses. 2. Knuth created his own fonts and tools and these are still part of a TeX system. What problems are still present in the fonts and support provided by modern GUI environments? 3. Knuth was concerned with maths. There are now many groups that use TeX for documents that do not involved maths. What do the descendants of TeX have that other general purpose tools lack? 4. Knuth was concerned primarily with typeset material. Since then there have been developments in linearization/flattened maths for communications, and math markup for web (html) documents. 5. Knuth built a compiler that is used in batch mode, but the majority of documents are created using GUI tools. What use cases are better served by batch mode, and in what cases is TeX used by default because of available GUI tools refuse to play. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Ftuture state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 13:19, Vafa Khalighi wrote: >> Hi >> Since Jonathan has no time any more for coding XeTeX, then what will be the >> state of XeTeX in TeX distributions such as TeXLive? will be XeTeX removed >> from TeXLive just like Aleph and Omega (in favour of LuaTeX) were removed >> from TeXLive? > > Omega was remove because it was buggy, unmaintained, but most > important of all: hardly usable. It took a genius to figure out how to > use it, while XeTeX is exactly the contrary. It simplifies everything > in comparison to pdfTeX. Omega was low quality and Aleph was > deprecated also because LuaTeX now contains all functionality that was > worth keeping. > > There is no reason to remove XeTeX yet (unless it gets merged with > LuaTeX one day, but that won't happen yet), but it is true that a > maintainer is desperately needed. If nothing else, if nobody adapts > the code, it might stop working with next version of Mac OS X or a > version after that. If I have an old house that meets my needs but has substandard plumbing and wiring, I may be in desperate need of a contractor who can bring it up to current standards, or I can tear it down and build a new house. Both options are expensive, but renovation involves greater uncertainties requires more skills than does new construction, so unless there are other considerations (house is a historical landmark), new construction is often better than renovation. Clearly XeTeX fills a need, but that doesn't mean it deserves ongoing development. The groups that rely on XeTeX have to either find a way to support development or switch to a new engine, which at present is LuaTeX. There has already been discussion of what would be needed to make the changes in XeTeX, maybe there needs to be discussion (in LuaTeX forums) of the barriers to adoption faced by the groups who currently rely on XeTeX. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] How to manually create the xelatex.fmt?
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Chris Travers wrote: >> Users also don't like to discover that the publishers' LaTeX format they >> need won't work with the distro TeX, or that a document that formats >> correctly >> on a co-author's Mac or Windows system won't format on their linux system. >> The TeX ecosystem needs some reasonable limits on how long old versions >> should be supported. If users can't get adequate support from their >> distro there >> are better supported alternatives. >> > Given that server software that I work with usually has at least a > five year support cycle, what are those reasonable limits? Five years seems to be a common support period. If you sell a distro with 5-year support then you should know that some packages you provide will "expire" before the 5 years is up and be prepared to provide updates. > Or is XeTeX not intended to be used in these environments? The 5 year limit is in LaTeX, not xetex. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] How to manually create the xelatex.fmt?
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:53 AM, wrote: > On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, George N. White III wrote: >> Users also don't like to discover that the publishers' LaTeX format they >> need won't work with the distro TeX, or that a document that formats >> correctly >> on a co-author's Mac or Windows system won't format on their linux system. > > That seems to me to be a reason to *continue* support for older versions, > not a reason to *end* it. I don't understand how you got from the above > to the next thing you wrote: No -- newer versions have to deal with changes to external interfaces (fonts, image formats, library versions, etc.) so end up adding extra code to check for old versions and work around limitations, or do without some desirable features that can't be implemented on the older version. It takes real work to support older versions and the options to make improvements are constrained. Compromises are needed to live within the hardware limitations of baseline systems at the time the design is fixed. This thinking would still have TeX configurations that could run in 16-bit memory address limits. Even if you think that would be useful, the people who do the heavy lifting tend to use current or even leading edge hardware and are going to be more interested in the new capabilities they can get by taking advantage of the latest hardware developments than minimizing memory footprints. Ultimately, the decisions are made by the people who write the code. >> The TeX ecosystem needs some reasonable limits on how long old versions >> should be supported. If users can't get adequate support from their > > -- > Matthew Skala > msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca People before principles. > http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/ > > > ------ > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] How to manually create the xelatex.fmt?
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Chris Travers wrote: > Hi. > > I appear to have solved this by running xelatex -ini manually and then > copying the ..fmt file to the appropriate directory. > > Thanks for everyone's help. > > As a note, I am really restricted to supporting TexLive versions that > ship on stable long-term-support (and supported) distros > > We can argue about whether these distros are too shy about upgrades, > but users don't like to hear that their shiny rpm or .deb requires > that they also track down large dependencies from external sources not > in any repository for their distro. Users also don't like to discover that the publishers' LaTeX format they need won't work with the distro TeX, or that a document that formats correctly on a co-author's Mac or Windows system won't format on their linux system. The TeX ecosystem needs some reasonable limits on how long old versions should be supported. If users can't get adequate support from their distro there are better supported alternatives. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] IPA characters
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Hendrik Maryns
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found http://www.tug.org/pipermail/xetex/2004-December/001574.html, but it
> isn’t answered.
>
> So here a new try: I want to use some IPA characters in my document. I can
> paste them in directly, it aren’t that much. But they show up blank.
Does the document need to use a particular "body" font or can you be
flexible? IPA glyphs are not universally included in fonts, so your options
are somewhat limited.
> I tried tipa, but didn’t get that to work either, and XeTeX is not mentioned
> in the manual.
>
> minimal example:
>
> \documentclass{scrartcl}
>
> \usepackage{fontspec}
>
> \begin{document}
>
> \emph{oma} eerder als een ‘korte a’ /ɑ/ uitgesprok
>
> alfabet bestaan daar reets tekens voor: ŋ, x, œ.
> verschillen: in Haarlem zou dat eerder ŋ, χ en œy
>
> \end{document}
>
> Solutions are welcomed with eternal gratitude.
I see many answers pointing out that the default font
for xelatex (latin modern) lacks IPA "characters",
but I expect it would be useful to know that there are
tools (BabbleMap for Windows) that allow you to
search for particular characters using the Unicode
coordinates. Many GUI "write" programs include
a glyph search tool, and standalone tools are available
for Linux and Mac OS X. To use them you will need to
install the fonts as "system fonts" -- this is mentioned in
the texlive documents.
--
George N. White III
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Strange behaviour xelatex/fontspec/Windows
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 3:10 AM, wrote: > Sorry for the late answer. Your message was put in the wrong thread > by my mail program. > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 05:53:38PM +0900, Akira Kakuto wrote: >> > It seems that the "fontconfig" package is running on Windows. >> > I have seen that the binaries (fc-list, fc-cache etc) >> > of fontconfig package are present. >> >> (1) >> Please confirm that the fc-cache.exe is the one provided by >> TeX Live, that is, it is in the TeX Live binary directory .../bin/win32. >> The other fc-cache.exe cannot be used for XeTeX in TL W32. >> > Yes it is the program given with TeXlive. >> (2) >> Go to the directory shown by the command >> kpsewhich -var-value FONTCONFIG_PATH >> >> (3) >> Make a file with the name "local.conf" in the directory, for example: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> g:/somedir/opentype >> g:/somedir/truetype >> >> > It's the way I plan to follow. Creating a "fonts.local" > with all the letters usable by Windows. Fortunately, > only the letters C-Z are used by Windows. > > Then I will create a small batch file which will > call "fc-cache -v" to redo the font cache. This is > not particularly elegant but at least should work > whenever the USB key is plugged on different Windows machine. Why not have the batch file write a local.conf with the correct drive letter? > By the way, with the last version of XeTeX they seems > to be a bug when handling fonts. I have a similar > problem on OpenSolaris (XeTeX from TL 2011 crashes as soon as > a specific font should be located on disk). > > With XeTeX from TeXLive 2010, they seems not to be > the same problems. > > I should still debug more deeply the problem under > OpenSolaris. >> >> (4) >> Run the commands >> mktexlsr >> fc-cache -v You may be able to avoid the mktexlsr step, either by creating a dummy local.conf and running mktexlsr once, then just updating the local.conf file, or arranging to keep local.conf in a small tree that doesn't use ls-R files. > This seems to work when the "fonts.conf" is correct (during > my first tests, the "fonts.conf" file does not contain the > correct references to the fonts). > > What I should still check however is that if when the "fonts.conf" > file is correct it is possible to load an non system font > (the test which was successful, was when the desired > font was considered as a system font since it was on the cache). Loading TL supplied fonts without installing them as system fonts certainly works for many users, but then you don't have then in system tools, e.g., in font table viewers like BableMap. A number of ports of linux tools (Gimp, Inkscape) also use fontconfig and supply their own config files, so you don't install fonts as system fonts each app has a different list of available fonts. > This test is now from less importance since I have found > a bypass but it could reveal a bug in the font handling > of XeTeX. > > I haven't had the time to do this last check. I will probably do it > that for the end of week. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] 64.bit XeTex was::Re: Trying to build microtype-aware xetex
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Richard Koch wrote: > Folks, > > I read lots of messages on the XeTeX and TeX on OS X mailing lists > of the form "I'm in the middle of a project using XeTeX; how do I do ….?" > This, plus > information from personal contacts, convinces me that XeTeX is heavily > used by people with real work to be done. Correct. Although xetex started out as a mac project, it is now being used on linux and Windows (and, at one time, on SGI IRIX64). I assume that some fraction of xetex users really need things they get from ATSUI that don't work on other platforms, but the way forward may be to fix problems in the support libs used on other platforms but potentially available to mac users as well, and/or finish luatex. > XeTeX runs fine on Lion, and other Macintosh systems. The minor > problem, as others have pointed out, is that it uses the ATSUI font libraries > rather than Core Text. When Apple enabled 64 bit GUI applications in > Leopard at the end of 2007, they didn't convert ATSUI to 64 bits, so > XeTeX is a 32 bit application on the Mac. > > When we introduced 64 bit versions of TeX apps in MacTeX, timing tests showed > that the speed increase with 64 bits was minor. For that reason, adding those > 64 bit versions was mildly controversial, and the need to compile XeTeX > in 64 bits isn't urgent. > > Having said all of that, it would be wonderful if someone would take on the > task of converting the Macintosh portions of XeTeX from ATSUI to Core Text, > since it would remove the worry that Apple (at some distant time) would > remove the 32 bit ATSUI Library from the system, and would allow us to compile > all of TeX Live in 64 bits. It might be better to put energy into other projects (luatex and supporting libraries). If x86_64 xetex is needed, simply follow macports and compile for x86_64 using open source libraries. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] 64.bit XeTex was::Re: Trying to build microtype-aware xetex
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Peter Dyballa wrote: > > Am 30.08.2011 um 16:43 schrieb Keith J. Schultz: > >> ATSU is deprecated and replaced by Core Text for handling unicode as of >> Leopard. >> >> So, xetex has to be refractured or rewritten to use Core Text on the Mac. >Core Text > Why? XeTeX pioneered in the use of Unicode in TeX. Its development has come > to a stop. LuaTeX is being developed. Do we need three Unicode TeXs? (The > third one is pTeX.) > In practice, XeTeX replaces Y&Y TeX for tasks that need to done today, require system fonts, and use legacy pstricks figures. This seems to be working for many users on Windows and linux. LuaTeX is too new to be trusted with workflows developed for Y&Y TeX. Is it useful for those who would otherwise want xetex with Core Text support? -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] 64.bit XeTex was::Re: Trying to build microtype-aware xetex
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > Hi George, > > The Macports version of xetex is built 64-bit, but it does not have > ATSU features. > so it is not "fully" functional. > > The question is if there is an actual need to still support ATSU at > all? > If we do the question is how hard would be to rewrite the needed > libraries. For some (my!) purposes, documents formatted across macosx, linux, and windows need to come out the same (multiple authors working in different locations with different IT "standards") but the docs are manuals and scientific reports with relatively few non-ASCII elements (mostly proper names) outside the math. I can imagine that some documents really do need Apple font technology, so at present those who need ATSU have to get by without the 64-bit binaries. Only those who really need ATSU can explain what they need -- perhaps it is possible improve open source libraries to provide what is needed. Many more people are interested in improving the open source libraries than are interested in xetex on macosx. > If this is the wrong place to discuss this, please point me in the > right direction. One of the most useful sources on information about problems in font libraries may be bug reports, both those filed against xetex on other platforms and against the open source libraries. A few years ago there were some quite insightful discussions of problems with the open source libraries (including comparisons with MS and Apple) -- don't know if those have been updated. This an area where things are developing rapidly, so I'm sure there have been significant changes. There are higher level libraries that hide platform differences, while taking advantage of native support on each platform. This could be a better way forward than simply updating the Apple font library calls, but one would need to check that the higher level libraries are available everywhere xetex is needed. > regards > Keith. > > > Am 30.08.2011 um 02:57 schrieb George N. White III: > >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Keith J. Schultz >> wrote: >>> Hi Herbert, >>> >>> You are right their is font library that is deprecated and only allows >>> xe(l)tex to be built 32-bit! >>> This will have to change as the Mac world has going 64-bit. Yes, you can >>> run 32-bit programs >>> under Lion, but it also comes at a performance price. >>> >>> Anyone know exactly which library and how hard it would be to refractor or >>> rewrite? >>> >> >> See the thread called "ATSUGetAttribute not found" on the tlbuild list >> for a discussion. >> >> Macports worked around the problem by building xetex using open source >> libraries: >> >> $ /opt/local/bin/xetex --version >> XeTeX 3.1415926-2.3-0.9997.5 (TeX Live 2011/MacPorts 2011_1) >> kpathsea version 6.0.1 >> Copyright 2011 SIL International and Jonathan Kew. >> There is NO warranty. Redistribution of this software is >> covered by the terms of both the XeTeX copyright and >> the Lesser GNU General Public License. >> For more information about these matters, see the file >> named COPYING and the XeTeX source. >> Primary author of XeTeX: Jonathan Kew. >> Compiled with ICU version 4.6 [with modifications for XeTeX] >> Compiled with zlib version 1.2.5; using 1.2.5 >> Compiled with FreeType2 version 2.4.6; using 2.4.6 >> Compiled with fontconfig version 2.8.0; using 2.8.0 >> Compiled with libpng version 1.4.8; using 1.4.8 >> Compiled with poppler version 0.16.6 >> >> $ file /opt/local/bin/xetex >> /opt/local/bin/xetex: Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 >> > > > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Trying to build microtype-aware xetex
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > Hi Herbert, > > You are right their is font library that is deprecated and only allows > xe(l)tex to be built 32-bit! > This will have to change as the Mac world has going 64-bit. Yes, you can run > 32-bit programs > under Lion, but it also comes at a performance price. > > Anyone know exactly which library and how hard it would be to refractor or > rewrite? > See the thread called "ATSUGetAttribute not found" on the tlbuild list for a discussion. Macports worked around the problem by building xetex using open source libraries: $ /opt/local/bin/xetex --version XeTeX 3.1415926-2.3-0.9997.5 (TeX Live 2011/MacPorts 2011_1) kpathsea version 6.0.1 Copyright 2011 SIL International and Jonathan Kew. There is NO warranty. Redistribution of this software is covered by the terms of both the XeTeX copyright and the Lesser GNU General Public License. For more information about these matters, see the file named COPYING and the XeTeX source. Primary author of XeTeX: Jonathan Kew. Compiled with ICU version 4.6 [with modifications for XeTeX] Compiled with zlib version 1.2.5; using 1.2.5 Compiled with FreeType2 version 2.4.6; using 2.4.6 Compiled with fontconfig version 2.8.0; using 2.8.0 Compiled with libpng version 1.4.8; using 1.4.8 Compiled with poppler version 0.16.6 $ file /opt/local/bin/xetex /opt/local/bin/xetex: Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 > regards > Keith. > > Am 29.08.2011 um 03:30 schrieb Herbert Schulz: > >> >> Howdy, >> >> Were you trying to build a 64bit xetex? I believe (folks, please correct me >> if I'm wrong) there is a problem building 64bit (some framework is 32bit >> only?) and the xetex for Mac (even the one in x86_64-darwin) is actually >> 32bit. >> >> Good Luck, >> >> Herb Schulz >> (herbs at wideopenwest dot com) >> > > > > > ---------- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] How to mix math fonts?
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
> Am Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:13:21 +0200 schrieb Mojca Miklavec:
>
>
>> Thanks a lot for the answer. Actually, the looping itself is not a
>> problem. I was trying to modify Will Robertson's document
>> (http://mirrors.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/unicode-math/unimath-symbols.pdf)
>
>> I'm still trying to decipher Ulrike's answer (bearing in mind that I
>> don't speak any latex 3 at all).
>
> You don't need to much about latex 3, only that you activate the
> catcodes with \ExplSyntaxOn. The more important knowledge you need
> is how to define a mathversion. I just tried my code with
> unimath-symbols. It seems to work fine. I attach the new version.
>
> The glyphs of the second font are inserted with \SYMBUF. Attention:
> if you want to change the definition of command you must do it in
> two places (in the \mathaccent section it has a different
> definition).
>
> While testing I found out that \Cap and Cup give different results.
> I would say XITS is wrong:
Yes, in a charmap tool like babelmap, U+22D3 DOUBLE UNION and
U+22D2 DOUBLE INTERSECTION are confused (standing upside down?),
but blame STIXGeneral -- XITS just inherits the mistake.
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{unicode-math}
>
> \begin{document}
> \setmathfont{Asana Math}
> $\Cap \Cup$
> \setmathfont{XITS Math}
> $\Cap \Cup$
> \end{document}
>
--
George N. White III
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Greek (and other Unicode) letters in math mode
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Tobias Schoel wrote: > > Last thing to say: Unicode is not designed to correctly express complex > mathematical formulae, but TeX is. (There are also attempts of linear nearly > plain unicode text math encodings, e.g. by Sargant Murray.) So use TeX. If the final document is a pdf that will go on the web you have to take care that the final pdf avoids composite characters that make them harder to search (e.g., google fails to find some authors' names). Where I work there is an office for a scientific organization that publishes a report series using LaTeX. Authors may provide word or latex sources. Word docs often have Unicode glyphs for \pi, \alpha, etc. and it is easier to translate to latex if the Unicode glyphs are preserved amid the maths markup. Many authors of LaTeX docs use some encoding for accented characters in proper names, etc., so again it would be better to preserve the author's encoding. In practice this doesn't yet work because some staff are devoted to WinEDT which does not yet handle unicode. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Greek (and other Unicode) letters in math mode
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Arno Trautmann wrote:
> \documentclass{minimal}
>
> \usepackage{unicode-math}
> \setmathfont{XITS-math}
>
> \begin{document}
> $∫ α = β²$
> \end{document}
>
> This works with a TeXlive2010 and LuaLaTeX or XeLaTeX. Unfortunately,
> however, the freely available math fonts are, in my personal opinion,
> not as beautiful as the cmr fonts …
There is a beta-test Latin Modern Math font in the ConTeXt minimals that can
also be used with lualatex or xelatex. I assume it lacks the
variations for different
design sizes, but does look similar to cmr. Your example raises another issue:
$β²$ vs $β²²$ vs $β^{2^2}$, etc. I think the conclusion is that $β²$
is (reluctantly)
allowed because so many users want it, but you won't get much sympathy
if $β²²$ doesn't give what you expect.
--
George N. White III
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] How can I encrypt (limit permissions) in my PDF?
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Ron Aaron wrote:
> Hi, all --
>
> If I create a simple PDF using xetex, I can post-process it using
> "pdftk" to create a "restricted" PDF which doesn't allow copy and paste,
> for example.
>
> After looking around, I noticed that 'xdvipdfmx' is *supposed* to also
> be able to do this; so I did something like:
>
> xetex --output-driver='xdvipdfmx -S' simple.tex
>
> However, this has two problems. First, it prompts for both owner and
> user passwords for the PDF, and there does not seem to be any way to
> specify them in a file or an option. Second, xdivpdfmx actually crashes
> with a "segmentation fault". Not very useful -- and the PDF is not
> generated, nor is a useful error given as to what may be the problem.
>
> What I would like ideally is to have a way to add a "\special{}" and get
> an encrypted PDF. Barring that, some what to have xdvipdfmx work
> correctly.
>
> Does anyone have ideas on how to make this work?
Is this really needed or appropriate for xdvipdfmx?
If the capability is provided by 3rd party tools then it might be better
to remove or hide such features in xdvipdfmx. One of the
advantages of pdf is the huge number of pdf creators who have
never heard of TeX but drive development of tools such as pdftk
and qpdf that work on "all" on pdf's, including those created by
xdvipdfmx.
--
George N. White III
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Installation of Texlive on Ubuntu 10.04
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Juan Francisco Fraile Vicente wrote: > As I have installed ubuntu 10.04 on my computer, I would like to have your > advice about what is the best way of installing TeXlive at the moment. > What is working better at the moment? Texlive 2010 or 2009? Depends on your needs, but in fact you can have both CTAN TL2010 and Ubuntu's TL on the same machine, and switch between them by adjusting the path. There have been some problems with the 64-bit xetex, so even if you are using 64-bit Ubuntu and need xetex you may want to install a 32-bit CTAN TL2010. > Is it better to do a full install from the iso file or install everything > from the repositories of Canonical? > When I was in Karmic Koala I installed the full Texlive, not from the > repositories. Everything was ok, I used the TeXworks editor of Jonathan, but > I tried to install Kile (from source) to give it a try and it was impossible > for me. I don't know if the situation is different now, so I would like to > know your opinions about this question, what is the best (I mean, less > problematic in the future) installation in this distribution. These days the problems tend to be the ones that only affect certain hardware or applications. Many many people rely on Ubuntu and don't encounter problems, but that may not be much comfort if your hardware is problematic or a key application misbehaves. Kubuntu has Kile and okular (which I prefer because evince has problems displaying plots from R). -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX documentation "initiative"
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 6:25 AM, Michiel Kamermans wrote: > (And ideally keeping it free, even if it ends up available in book form. I > personally found that the one truly annoying thing about the LaTeX companion > - I don't mind paying for a reference work after it turns out it is the > reference work I need, but what's the point of a free typesetting engine > when the documentation costs a non-trivial amount of money? It always seemed > to me the one real reason LaTeX is considered so inaccessible to the general > public) I don't mind paying for books I find useful, but I have found that The LaTeX Companion must be useful to people who do mind paying, as I have had to replace it several times after my copy went missing. I don't have a lock on my office door, so I've had other books disappear once, but TLC is the only one that needed replacement multiple times. I like Cory Doctorow's approach -- you can get his book for free and if you want to pay for it he suggests donating copies to schools and libraries. Maybe if more libraries had TLC I could keep it on my shelf. For works like TLC the ability to search for a specific topic gives digital versions an advantage over print. I have noticed that many people need help locating the appropriate section in TLC using contents and index, despite the obvious effort that went into those parts fo teh book. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] xunicode, tipa (again) plus amsmath
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Alan Munn wrote:
> Hi, a while ago, Ulrike posted an nice way to allow legacy tipa code to be
> used with xelatex. Unfortunately I've encountered a problem: it doesn't
> work inside math mode. Is there a way to fix this? Thanks
I use \mbox{} for text in maths mode, and \mbox use the text encoding of
the "surrounding" text, so try:
\begin{ipa}
$\mbox{RPAQIOE2}$
\end{ipa}
>
> Alan
>
>
> % !TEX TS-program = XeLaTeX
>
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{amsmath}
> \usepackage{xltxtra}
> \newfontfamily{\ipafont}{Doulos SIL}
> \def\useTIPAfont{\ipafont}
> \newenvironment{ipa}{%
> \let\stone\TIPAstonebar
> \let\tone\TIPAtonebar
> \setTIPAcatcodes\activatetipa
> \csname useTIPAfont\endcsname
> }{}
> \begin{document}
> \textipa{RPAQIOE2} % This will give you correct phonetic characters
> \begin{ipa}
> RPAQIOE
> \end{ipa}
> $\text{\textipa{RPAQIOE2}}$ % unfortunately this doesn't
> $\textipa{RPAQIOE2}$ % and neither does this
> \end{document}
> --
> Alan Munn
> am...@gmx.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>
--
George N. White III
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] ghostscript version
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Mike Maxwell wrote: > We're using your pdfpages package to include PDFs into a PDF produced by > XeLaTeX. We discovered that ghostscript, which gets used in this process, > had a bug in an earlier (c2007) version, which causes it to crash on one of > the PDFs that we're including. > > The work-around is of course to use a more recent version of ghostscript, > and that works fine. However, we need (for compatibility reasons I won't go > into) to keep the older version of ghostscript in its default location. So > I suspect the solution of using the newer version of ghostscript only works > because I have its directory ahead of the other directory in my PATH. In > the interests of having a robust script, I'd like to eliminate this > dependency on my particular PATH. > > I had thought that the pdfpages package itself called ghostscript (or > created a call for it to be called later on), but the author of that > package, Andreas Matthias, tells me that gs gets called by xdvipdfmx. > > There's no error msg from xdvipdfmx, the error msg in the log file is from > the older version of ghostscript (and as I say, everything is fine with the > newer version of ghostscript). > > So: is there a way to tell xdvipdfmx where to look for the gs executable? Try 'xdvipdfmx -h" which will give you the "-D" option. Then look for the default setting in the config file. On mine TL2010, this invokes a luatex script called rungs, which serves mainly to handle the different default names (gswin32c on windows and gs for the rest of the world) for ghostscript. > We're using the version of xdvipdfmx in the TeXlive 2009 distro. > > Andreas also wrote: >> Xdvipdfmx uses ghostscript to convert some graphics formts, >> e.g. while including postscript files. However it normally >> doesn't need ghostscript to embed pdf files. Maybe it uses >> ghostscript when you are changing the compression level of >> a pdf? > > I'm not trying to change the compression level, so perhaps there's a simpler > way to include a PDF than the way I'm doing it, which would bypass > ghostscript? (My way is to load the pdfpages package, and use a \includepdf > command to include a PDF page in the appropriate place.) > -- > Mike Maxwell > maxw...@umiacs.umd.edu > "A library is the best possible imitation, by human beings, > of a divine mind, where the whole universe is viewed and > understood at the same time... we have invented libraries > because we know that we do not have divine powers, but we > try to do our best to imitate them." --Umberto Eco > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] XITS Math font - first beata
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Will Robertson wrote: > On 2010-06-07 01:41:41 +0930, "George N. White III" said: > >> I replaced the accent macros with unicode glyphs, e.g. Möbius, Poincar >> é, etc. >> One AMS text symbol (\S --> §) generated and undefined. > > Have you loaded xunicode? No (I prefer to use unicode input for regular text) >> cmsy is still being used somehow, somewhere: > > Needs to be fixed. But I wouldn't be surprised for a few edge cases still. > >> 1) existing documents may need editing to replace macros with unicode >> glyphs > > All math symbols should still be defined as macros, although I might have > missed a few. The idea is to make it easy to use the new fonts, hopefully, > without (m)any changes to the source document. I'm happy to make many changes provided they are a) easily automated, b) reversible, and c) make the document more readable. Accents in legacy tex are a problem (at least in Canada!) because some (laptop) screens don't adequately differentiate between forward and back ticks. The problem § was a macro that defined a text glyph -- no doubt there are more to be discovered in widely used packages -- not only math. >> 2) recommended xetex, etc. versions, e.g, >> >> XeTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.2-0.9997.1 (TeX Live 2010) > > TeXLive 2010 for unicode-math and fontspec v2 and LuaLaTeX (if you want it) > is a good metric. The actual version of XeTeX isn't too important as it's > had maths support for years. (Sorry it's taken me so long.) xetex has had some rough edges (for x86_64, Debian TL2009: XeTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.2-0.9995.2 (TeX Live 2009/Debian) using fontspec and uniccode math from the local texmf tree works; while CTAN TL2010 dumps core. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] XITS Math font - first beata
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> You can now grap the four styles from git tree:
> http://github.com/khaledhosny/xits-math
>
> No proper release yet, but if no serious bugs appeared in the next 24
> hours, I'll make one.
>
> For text use "XITS", and "XITS Math" for math.
Thanks for producing the other .otf files. ATM I'm using linux, which
is "case-sensitive" and expects XITS-XXX.otf files (e.g., capitalized
xits). I suggest using captitalized names for the release. As previously
reported, the x86_64-linux version of xetex dumps core, so I'm using
the i386-linux binaries from TL2010 pretest.
I tried formatting the AMS-LaTeX sample file (testmath.tex -->
testmath-XITS.tex)
\usepackage{unicode-math}
\setmainfont[
Extension=.otf,
UprightFont=*-regular,
ItalicFont=*-italic,
BoldFont=*-bold,
BoldItalicFont=*-bolditalic,
Numbers=OldStyle,
Mapping=tex-text
]{XITS}
% math font
\setmathfont{XITS Math}
I replaced the accent macros with unicode glyphs, e.g. Möbius, Poincaré, etc.
One AMS text symbol (\S --> §) generated and undefined.
cmsy is still being used somehow, somewhere:
$ pdffonts testmath-XITS.pdf
name type emb sub uni object ID
- --- --- --- -
OYKLDN+XITS-Identity-H CID Type 0C yes yes yes 5 0
XOKMER+LMMono12-Regular-Identity-H CID Type 0C yes yes yes 7 0
HIHYEO+XITS-Bold-Identity-H CID Type 0C yes yes yes 9 0
CDRMSV+CMSY10Type 1C yes yes no 10 0
DQLWEP+XITSMath-Identity-H CID Type 0C yes yes yes 12 0
NATEFX+LMMono10-Regular-Identity-H CID Type 0C yes yes yes 14 0
BTXNGD+XITS-Italic-Identity-HCID Type 0C yes yes yes 20 0
With TL2010 prerelease XITS seems to be at a stage where extensive testing
will be useful. I would suggest providing some guidance for new users in the
documentation and with example files in order to help people get off to a good
start:
1) existing documents may need editing to replace macros with unicode glyphs
2) recommended xetex, etc. versions, e.g,
XeTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.2-0.9997.1 (TeX Live 2010)
Thanks for the good work!
> Regards,
> Khaled
>
> --
> Khaled Hosny
> Arabic localiser and member of Arabeyes.org team
> Free font developer
>
>
> --
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>
--
George N. White III
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Python Project: PDF Optimization
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Wilfred van Rooijen wrote: > Hi all, > > Given the few responses we have had so far on this topic, it seems that the > OP is right: there are many, small programs available which can do most of > what is required, but each of those programs then has specific applications > which it can or cannot do. To make an "integrated" package, one would need to > make a wrapper around all the programs, or start something new. > > In my professional life I encounter a very similar problem, namely a > multitude of (old) programs with a lot of overlap in their capabilities, but > each with specific strengths. It takes forever to learn all the differences > between the programs, and the time to make input files etc is much longer > than necessary because you need to rewrite the inputs specifically for each > program. I am trying to convince the Powers That Be that it would be better > to reprogram the bulk - but the reply I always get is: "But it works, doesn't > it?" Many share your experience and frustration. One of the reasons for proliferation of tools is that writing or modifying a tool to solve a specific problem can be done in a known time period, while searching for a appropriate existing tool is open-ended and may well end in deciding to write new code anyway. Perhaps you can remind the Powers That Be (PTB) that 1) it DOES take considerable time and effort to work out the proper role of each program, 2) PTB are responsible for "workflow continuity" planning, specifically, if you were to be incapacitated, can they afford the time it would take your replacement to learn the details of the programs? In other words, it isn't enough that the current practices "work", they need to be designed to continue to work in an uncertain future. The PTB may be concerned that a program you might write won't be useful to your replacement, but may be more supportive of participation in a larger project, e.g., to ensure the results are useful for your workflows. > Later, > Wilfred > > --- On Sat, 5/6/10, Martin Schröder wrote: > >> From: Martin Schröder >> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] Python Project: PDF Optimization >> To: "Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms" >> Date: Saturday, 5 June, 2010, 11:16 PM >> 2010/6/5 Pablo Rodríguez : >> > pdfopt cannot linearize some PDF files >> > (http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690462#c2). >> >> qpdf can. >> >> And ps2pdf can downsample pdfs. >> >> Best >> Martin >> >> >> >> -- >> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: >> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex >> > > > > > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] XITS Math font - first beata
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote: > On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 03:57:53AM +0930, Will Robertson wrote: >> On 2010-06-06 02:54:13 +0930, Taco Hoekwater >> said: >> >> >Will Robertson wrote: >> >>On 2010-06-06 01:28:46 +0930, Eelis van der Weegen >> >> said: >> >> >> >>>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 decade yet. >> >> >> I'm a little sensitive to calling people out on missed deadlines... > > But missing every stated deadline in 5 years (more?) is a bit special > you know. I've been missing every stated deadline for releasing my > Arabic font for a couple of years now myself, but I either state those > deadlines privately or not at all, not publish them in the front page of > my website. I appreciate all the effort put into STIX and the fact it > was eventually released under free/libre font license, but they should > have learnt a lesson from the always missed deadlines... > >> anyway, if this ends up being true then they may as well commission >> Khaled to do the job for them :) > > One thing that I'd like to do, giving enough incentive, is to convert > XITS into a set of Type1 and TFM fonts for use with legacy TeX engines. > It can be fairly automated; read the font in FontForge, map MATH to TeX > properties and write back a set of subset Type1 fonts and corresponding > PL files, but I don't feel like investing time in learning obsolete > technologies (Type1, TFM, PL, LaTeX math etc.), so, apart from the > potential large number of people who would benefit from it, there is no > much incentive. I expect STIX will have to provide Type 1 fonts for use with legacy workflows (and because TeX's unicode support isn't ready for use in production environments). I think there are more who will benefit from being able use maths with native languages that are not well supported by those legacy TeX technologies, so I my view efforts to improve support for unicode fonts will certainly be useful for many years to come, while making XITS work with legacy TeX may end up duplicating the efforts of the STIX project (and, assuming they haven't all retired by the time v 1.1 comes out, people who have many years experience with the legacy technologies). -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] XITS Math font - first beata
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Will Robertson wrote: > On 2010-06-06 02:54:13 +0930, Taco Hoekwater said: > >> Will Robertson wrote: >>> >>> On 2010-06-06 01:28:46 +0930, Eelis van der Weegen >>> said: >>> >>>> 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 decade yet. > > > I'm a little sensitive to calling people out on missed deadlines... anyway, > if this ends up being true then they may as well commission Khaled to do the > job for them :) 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 Unicode Technical Committee to accept the submissions), reconciling STIX with both legacy math fonts (as used in typesetters) and MS Office and Cambria Math. <http://blogs.msdn.com/b/murrays/archive/2007/11/06/stix-beta-fonts.aspx> and <http://blogs.msdn.com/b/murrays/archive/2010/01/12/special-capabilities-of-a-math-font.aspx> gives some insight into the difficulties in making the fonts useful with MS Office. The fact that the fonts are available now under an open license means the TeX community will benefit even if STIX continues to miss deadlines. The real losers are the people who are still trying to do maths using the Symbol font. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] XITS Math font - first beata
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Will Robertson wrote: > On 2010-06-06 01:28:46 +0930, Eelis van der Weegen said: > >> On 2010-06-04 20:31, Khaled Hosny wrote: >>> >>> As promised, the OpenType MATH enriched version of STIX fonts, XITS, >>> is now available. >> >> XITS looks very neat! >> >> Are the STIX people planning to release /official/ OpenType MATH >> enriched versions at some point as well (perhaps as part of STIX version >> 1.1 or 1.2)? > > v1.1 will have OpenType MATH support. > v1.2 will denote (La)TeX support. > >> If so, to what extent would this make XITS obsolete? > > Depends how good a job they do :) Goodness is in the eye of the beholder. I expect some scientific publishers will expect STIX to be used in MS submissions. Large organizations may require Cambria or STIX for documents (PDF?) that will be archived for future generations. Commercial tools may be tweaked to compensate for bugs in STIX, so workflows using STIX will be trusted. <http://www.ams.org/STIX/glyphs/proposal/newsub/utc/utcmemo-s-jun99.pdf> "The ultimate product of the STIX group will be the creation of one comprehensive set of fonts for scienti c and technical publishing. This set of fonts should be adopted and supported by all major STM publishers, and will also be made available for general use under license but free of charge, with the explicit aim to ease and foster the uninhibited flow, exchange, and linking of scienti c information." The real benefit of XITS is to help TeX users start working with STIX now, so some issues can be found by the people who care about the appearance of maths documents and addressed before they turn into features. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] unicode-math testing
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Nikos Platis wrote:
> By now this is mostly off-topic, but I checked the test case on
> another computer with TeXLive 2009 x86_64 and get segmentation fault
> as well.
>
> I also just installed TL 2010/pretest (Linux x86_64) and again get the
> segmentation fault.
>
> Has anyone else tried the file on this architecture?
>
> Nikos Platis
>
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:45, Nikos Platis wrote:
>> Interesting...
>>
>> On a fully updated TeXLive 2009 on Linux i386, with XeTeX
>> 3.1415926-2.2-0.9995.2, the sample runs fine.
>>
>> On a fully updated TeXLive 2009 on Linux x86_64, with XeTeX
>> 3.1415926-2.2-0.9995.2, I get a segmentation fault!
>> This seems to happen when processing unicode-math-table.tex, the log stops at
>>
>> Defining \um_config_mathbfsfup_Latin:n on line 1658
>> Defining \um_config
>>
>> If I can provide more debug information, I can do so today. I will try
>> the sample on another machine with more or less the same configuration
>> tomorrow and report my results.
>>
>> Nikos Platis
TL2010pretest on Ubuntu Linux x86_64 segfualts for me as well. strace
ends with:
read(5, "UnicodeMathSymbol{\"1D69D}{\\mttt "..., 4096) = 4096
--- SIGSEGV (Segmentation fault) @ 0 (0) ---
+++ killed by SIGSEGV +++
Segmentation fault
valgrind says:
==4835== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
[...]
(./unicode-math-table.tex==4835== Invalid read of size 2
==4835==at 0x425628: ??? (in /usr/local/texlive/2010/bin/x86_64-linux/xetex)
[...]
==4835==by 0x5303C4C: (below main) (libc-start.c:226)
==4835== Address 0x18eea82 is not stack'd, malloc'd or (recently) free'd
==4835==
==4835==
==4835== Process terminating with default action of signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
==4835== Access not within mapped region at address 0x18EEA82
When run under gdb the job runs successfully.
--
George N. White III
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] unicode-math testing
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Diederick C. Niehorster wrote: > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Khaled Hosny wrote: >> Looks like xetex is getting glyph indexes from one font file but loading >> the actual glyph from another font. Checking the output of 'fc-list : >> file' my reveal that you, or whoever is experiencing this, have several >> version of the font accessible to xetex, if so, then removing all but >> one can solve the issue. > > I have had problems like this as well, a while ago, but simply with > fontspec. I had one of Adobe's fonts in both my windows fonts > directory and in the TeX tree (same version btw) and my documents came > out all garbled. Removing the one in windows\fonts fixed it. > > Should XeTeX just stick with whichever of the fonts it finds first? At the very least there should be some warning if different versions of fonts are being used at different stages, but I suppose this could get very noisy with the common practice of having at least 3 very different fonts all claiming to be Helvetica-Italic, so perhaps it needs to be added to some list of debugging flags and left off by default. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Scaling graphics
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Michiel Kamermans
wrote:
> Ulrike,
>
>> Well most of the graphics on my pc have either no dpi entry or 72,
>> but I found one with 300dpi and this too is larger (x4) when used
>> with xelatex. (it is not a graphic I can share so we can't test if
>> it works for you too).
>
> Odd... I did a minmal example with the jpg that Jose linked to, and it
> indeed becomes way too large. However, when I compare it to one of the
> graphics I use in my book
> (http://grammar.nihongoresources.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?cache=&media=gyousho.jpg
> <http://grammar.nihongoresources.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?cache=&media=gyousho.jpg>),
> running xelatex on the following code makes it look exactly as big as the
> image indicates it should be...
>
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{xltxtra}
> \usepackage{graphicx}
> \begin{document}
> \section{Figura\textunderscore 3-1.JPG}
> \includegraphics{Figura_3-1.JPG}
> \section{gyousho.jpg}
> \includegraphics{gyousho.jpg}
> \end{document}
>
> There's two differences between the two, one in the amount of EXIF data, the
> other in the presence of a "thumbnail" encoding in my image which comes with
> its own 72dpi... now I'm wondering which image graphicsx actually picks up!
> If it picks up the 72dpi thumbnail instead of the 300dpi actual image,
> that'd be a pretty severe bug in graphicx.
You should be able to see the difference using a pdf viewer and setting
a high magnification.
There are free tools included, e.g., with Imagemagick, to display the
metadata in various image formats.
> I'll see if I can "rig" an image so that the thumbnail looks nothing like
> the actual image, and see what the resulting pdf looks like.
>
>> I checked the image properties with irfanview and it shows 601x601
>> dpi and resolution unit "inch".
>>
>
> I used IrfanView too, intrestingly enough I get different values now that
> I'm back home and have downloaded the jpg to this machine instead... Still
> leaves an interesting mystery.
The "units" may be affected by the locale as well as settings specific to
IrfanView. XeTeX introduces some complexity as both xetex itself and
also the dvi to pdf converter need to use the image metadata and/or make
some assumptions.
In general, the safest route when you are creating pdf's is to convert all
figures and images to pdf first. In this way you can check that the conversion
is done properly in each case and choose tools that work best for each of the
formats used in a document. The size and complexity of XeTeX would be
greatly increased if it contained all the image processing capabilities needed
for every type of figure. XeTeX development is done by a very few people,
but if you draw on 3rd party image processing tools you benefit from a much
larger pool of users and developers.
--
George N. White III
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
