Jonathan Kew wrote:
> Minimal example, to be run *without* any latex or babel macros: Slightly modified example to shew the use of Knuth's \showhyphens macro, with surprising results : % >>>>> file "de-1996.tex" <<<<< \catcode`\{=1 \catcode`\}=2 \catcode `\# = 6 \input unicode-letters.tex \input hyph-de-1996.tex \font\tenrm = "Times New Roman" at 10pt \hyphenchar\tenrm=`\- \tenrm \hsize=2in \vsize=8in \parfillskip=0pt \def \showhyphens #1{\setbox 0 = \vbox {\parfillskip = 0 pt \hsize = 16383.99999 pt \tenrm \pretolerance = -1 \tolerance = -1 \hbadness = 0 \showboxdepth = 0 \ #1}} \showhyphens {wußte geißeln} \noindent wußte geißeln wußte geißeln wußte geißeln wußte geißeln wußte geißeln wußte geißeln wußte geißeln wußte geißeln wußte geißeln wußte geißeln wußte geißeln wußte geißeln \par \end The strangeness : the output from \showhyphens (modulo Windows console character set) is : > Underfull \hbox (badness 10000) in paragraph at lines 19--19 > [] \tenrm wu├ƒte gei├ƒeln yet the PDF has hyphenation gei-ßeln & wuß-te. So how is it that \showhyphens does not show these hyphenation points, and (an unrelated question) why does the test example use the "Reformed orthography" patterns and not the "Traditional orthography" (1901) ? Do we not (in theory, at least) need the traditional orthography patterns in order to hyphenate words containing eszet ? ** Phil. -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex