Daniel Greenhoe wrote:
Wouldn't a simple \v{u} render sufficient quality?
Reinhard Kotucha wrote :
I suppose that the idea was to use \v{u} in order to compose the
glyph and am sure that you don't need LaTeX in order to achieve this.
You are both quite correct, it almost certainly would.
The problem is, once one starts using Unicode, one tends
to forget the earlier TeX methods for glyph composition,
and I certainly did in this case. However, whether \v {u}
is really any better than ŭ is philosophically debatable :
both are kludges, and I was really looking for a cleaner solution !
Since you are using Antykwa fonts for the newsletter, I'm wondering
whether you already considered to ask the authors to add the glyph.
I suppose that the glyph is missing because they didn't know that you
need it.
I hadn't considered that, mainly because I know just how
busy the authors are, but I suppose I might ask if they
could consider it in time for next year's newsletter ...
** Phil.
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
