On 2010-11-15 10:18:56 +1030, Adam McCollum
said:
When I run XeLaTeX on a file (I've tried several), I get this error
message.
[snip]
By the way, I've run TeX Live and updated everything.
You must be using TeX Live 2009. The current version is TeX Live 2010,
and you can't upgrade from the f
Greetings,
When I run XeLaTeX on a file (I've tried several), I get this error
message.
<>
I can hit Return here and everything seems to work fine, but there's
obviously some sort of problem, however minor, so I'll be glad to know
what I might have missed.
By the way, I've run TeX Li
Hi Alan,
On 15/11/2010, at 5:57 AM, Alan Munn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In xunicode.sty there's some preliminary definitions for \textrbrackdbl and
> \textlbrackdbl that appear after the \endinput (and are therefore not
> standardly defined.) The suggested definition use x301A and x301B (which come
>
Hi,
In xunicode.sty there's some preliminary definitions for
\textrbrackdbl and \textlbrackdbl that appear after the \endinput
(and are therefore not standardly defined.) The suggested definition
use x301A and x301B (which come from CJK Symbols and Punctuation) as
the UTF character. Is
Hi Pinfeng,
Sent from my iPad
On 13/11/2010, at 10:49 PM, "Christian Schmidt" wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
>>> Though, this leads me to the additional note, that in math mode---which is
>>> typically set in italics---, the use of \mathbf{x} does not produce a bold
>>> italic variant but rather only a
Am 13.11.2010 12:49, schrieb Christian Schmidt:
I wasn't aware about this issue. In normal text mode, italic and bold
font selections work complementary... so I expected the same behavior in
math mode too. I can't really understand these differing approaches.
Maybe, I am too bold answering, but
