Re: [XeTeX] wspr's realscripts & updated xelatex templates
On 2010-09-15 17:50:42 +0930, David Cottenden said: On 15/09/10 09:08, Will Robertson wrote: - Defines the dubiously useful commands \vfrac - for vulgar fractions with fontspec \namedglyph - to access font glyphs by name #4(a,b) are probably never used. No! Don't remove these, please! They have at least /one/ user... \vfrac is especially useful. Am I alone in this, or does anyone else use them? Speak now, or I'll shut up, go away, and copy the bits of code out of xltxtra before their demise... Oh, don't worry, xltxtra will never go away -- but at this point in time I'm no longer recommending that it needs to be used "by default" by most users. In time I'll merge \vfrac's functionality into the xfrac package, I suspect. Until then continue to use xltxtra :) W -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] wspr's realscripts & updated xelatex templates
On 2010-09-16 00:01:32 +0930, Ulrike Fischer said: Am Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:49:40 +0300 schrieb Khaled Hosny: Fontspec loads xunicode for luatex Only the version from github. The "official" version on CTAN 2010/08/01 v2.0c doesn't load xunicode yet. Oops, thanks. Need to get that updated ASAP. I was meaning to do so before I went travelling and it then slipped my mind. W -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] wspr's realscripts & updated xelatex templates
Am Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:49:40 +0300 schrieb Khaled Hosny: > Fontspec loads xunicode for luatex Only the version from github. The "official" version on CTAN 2010/08/01 v2.0c doesn't load xunicode yet. -- Ulrike Fischer -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] wspr's realscripts & updated xelatex templates
I'm a plain TeX user so not directly involved, but any package that makes vulgar fractions simple (especially if the results are consistently good) seems worth retaining on principle. Something like 'three twelve hundred and twenty-fourths' can be a real pain to code manually depending on the font! John - Original Message - From: "David Cottenden" To: "Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms" Sent: 15 September 2010 09:20 Subject: Re: [XeTeX] wspr's realscripts & updated xelatex templates On 15/09/10 09:08, Will Robertson wrote: - Defines the dubiously useful commands \vfrac - for vulgar fractions with fontspec \namedglyph - to access font glyphs by name #4(a,b) are probably never used. No! Don't remove these, please! They have at least /one/ user... \vfrac is especially useful. Am I alone in this, or does anyone else use them? Speak now, or I'll shut up, go away, and copy the bits of code out of xltxtra before their demise... David -- David Cottenden PhD Student Continence and Skin Technology Group UCL Phone: +44 (0)20 7288 3771 Fax: +44 (0)20 7288 3019 -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] wspr's realscripts & updated xelatex templates
On 15/09/10 09:08, Will Robertson wrote: - Defines the dubiously useful commands \vfrac - for vulgar fractions with fontspec \namedglyph - to access font glyphs by name #4(a,b) are probably never used. No! Don't remove these, please! They have at least /one/ user... \vfrac is especially useful. Am I alone in this, or does anyone else use them? Speak now, or I'll shut up, go away, and copy the bits of code out of xltxtra before their demise... David -- David Cottenden PhD Student Continence and Skin Technology Group UCL Phone: +44 (0)20 7288 3771 Fax: +44 (0)20 7288 3019 -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] wspr's realscripts & updated xelatex templates
On 2010-09-15 04:19:40 +0930, Khaled Hosny
said:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:44:06AM -0400, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
I’ve not been following the recent back-and-forth regarding which
XɘLaTeX packages are now obsolete, and which are compatible with LuaLaTeX.
Right now my personal style files files have lines like these:
\ifxetex
\RequirePackage{fontspec, xunicode, xltxtra}
\fi
\ifluatex
\RequirePackage{fontspec}
\fi
Am I missing something here? Where does realscripts fit in?
The xltxtra documentation isn't that complex, is it? :) This is what
the readme says:
- Loads fontspec and Ross Moore's xunicode automatically.
- Loads Andrew Moschou's metalogo package for \XeTeX and \XeLaTeX logos.
- Loads the fixltx2e package and patches other LaTeX commands:
\textsuperscript & \textsubscript:
now use fontspec to access
real superior/inferior characters,
\showhyphens: now works,
- Defines the dubiously useful commands
\vfrac - for vulgar fractions with fontspec
\namedglyph - to access font glyphs by name
Of these, #1 is covered just by \usepackage{fontspec}, #2 you can do on
your own if you need it, #3(a) is what realscripts does (for XeLaTeX or
LuaLaTeX), #3(b) isn't used often, and #4(a,b) are probably never used.
When I have a moment I'll remove the code from xltxtra that does #3(a)
and just load the realscripts package instead.
Long story short, I'd recommend these days just loading fontspec and
seeing if that works for you :)
Remove xltxtra, add realscripts (if you need its functionality, but
usually the fonts are broken so it does not work the way it should), now
if you need the extra logos, load one of the packages that provide
extra tex logos, hologo for example.
I wouldn't say the fonts are "usually" broken, but they are broken
often enough that doing it automatically in fontspec would be a bad
idea.
Cheers,
Will
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] wspr's realscripts & updated xelatex templates
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:44:06AM -0400, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
> I’ve not been following the recent back-and-forth regarding which
> XɘLaTeX packages are now obsolete, and which are compatible with LuaLaTeX.
>
> Right now my personal style files files have lines like these:
> \ifxetex
> \RequirePackage{fontspec, xunicode, xltxtra}
> \fi
> \ifluatex
> \RequirePackage{fontspec}
> \fi
> Am I missing something here? Where does realscripts fit in?
Remove xltxtra, add realscripts (if you need its functionality, but
usually the fonts are broken so it does not work the way it should), now
if you need the extra logos, load one of the packages that provide
extra tex logos, hologo for example.
Fontspec loads xunicode for luatex (since it has to cheat to bypass the
xetex test, until Ross is confident enough that luatex can be
"officially" supported).
This all assumes your texlive packages match the latest on CTAN.
--
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
Re: [XeTeX] wspr's realscripts & updated xelatex templates
Philipp Stephani wrote: > xltxtra is obsolete, the rest seems fine. Now that fontspec does most of the stuff that xltxtra used to do, is it only worth loading xltxtra if you want logos? Or are there other things for which it's still needed? Gareth. -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] wspr's realscripts & updated xelatex templates
Am 14.09.2010 um 16:44 schrieb Joel C. Salomon:
> I’ve not been following the recent back-and-forth regarding which
> XɘLaTeX packages are now obsolete, and which are compatible with LuaLaTeX.
>
> Right now my personal style files files have lines like these:
> \ifxetex
> \RequirePackage{fontspec, xunicode, xltxtra}
> \fi
> \ifluatex
> \RequirePackage{fontspec}
> \fi
> Am I missing something here?
xltxtra is obsolete, the rest seems fine. Actually I think xunicode should be
made compatible with LuaTeX. It's README says,
"This package is designed to work with TeX engines that directly
process UTF8 input and use Unicode and OpenType fonts.
At the time of writing, XeTeX is the only known engine of this kind.
(When other engines become available, the package will need modifying
not to check solely for XeTeX.)"
> Where does realscripts fit in?
No idea.
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
