> Type1 smallcaps fonts used to do that, not sure why, but probably
> because some applications were doing ligature replacement incrementally
> and I think it propagated to some (early?) Adobe OpenType fonts. Also,
> some fonts seem to use such smallcap ligatures to fix bad interaction
> between ‘l
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 01:11:55PM +0100, Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
> > Thank you. This is just what I needed. Incidentally, the tag +liga
> > yielding ligatures for fi, ff, fl, ffi and ffl is the default.
> > It shoul be disabled for small caps:
>
> I'm pretty sure this is taken care of by the f
> Thank you. This is just what I needed. Incidentally, the tag +liga
> yielding ligatures for fi, ff, fl, ffi and ffl is the default.
> It shoul be disabled for small caps:
I'm pretty sure this is taken care of by the font. Have you observed
a small caps "fi" ligature? I don't even see why a f
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 01:49:26PM +0200, Jean-Claude Raoult wrote:
> Le 19/06/2013 12:23, Khaled Hosny a écrit :
> >On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 11:53:00AM +0200, Jean-Claude Raoult wrote:
> >>The documentation is clear, for people using LaTeX or rather XeLaTeX.
> >Presumably because you were reading L
Le 19/06/2013 12:23, Khaled Hosny a écrit :
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 11:53:00AM +0200, Jean-Claude Raoult wrote:
The documentation is clear, for people using LaTeX or rather XeLaTeX.
Presumably because you were reading LaTeX oriented documentation? XeTeX
documentation itself documents the low le
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 11:53:00AM +0200, Jean-Claude Raoult wrote:
> The documentation is clear, for people using LaTeX or rather XeLaTeX.
Presumably because you were reading LaTeX oriented documentation? XeTeX
documentation itself documents the low level primitives and is macro
package neutral,
> The fontspec manual describes it. The keywords are rlig, hlig, clig, etc.
For more details on OpenType tags, you might want to check the
specification, and match the list of tags defined in the font at hand
with it: http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/featuretags.htm
Also, the questi
Am 19.06.2013 um 11:39 schrieb Philip Taylor:
> If I find no more informative replies by the time I am next online,
> I will investigate further and report back.
The fontspec manual describes it. The keywords are rlig, hlig, clig, etc. They
can be (de)activated in plain TeX as in:
\fon
Jean-Claude Raoult wrote:
> Please, think of people using plain TeX. I am certainly not the only one.
Indeed you are not, Jean-Claude, and I too like ct and st ligatures
in high-quality typography. I am reasonably certain that it is
possible without using the execrable LaTeX, but with a visito
Le 02/06/2013 14:44, John Was a écrit :
Hello
I use plain XeTeX also, but not that font. However, looking at the
Libertine website, I would suggest you add
:+hlig
to the font call (so e.g. "Linux Libertine O:+hlig:mapping=tex-text")
If you right-click the font file itself and select 'Pro
Jean-Claude Raoult"
To:
Sent: 02 June 2013 10:53
Subject: [XeTeX] Ligatures
Hello,
I am fond of (french) typography. Therefore, I would like XeTeX to
automatically change not only fi, ff, fl and the like, but also st and
ct — when available.
The documentation is clear, for people using LaTe
Hello,
I am fond of (french) typography. Therefore, I would like XeTeX to
automatically change not only fi, ff, fl and the like, but also st and
ct — when available.
The documentation is clear, for people using LaTeX or rather XeLaTeX.
Unfortunately, I do not practice the english proverb "why
Thank you everybody for your answers. It solved some of my problems,
at least about the "false" ligatures. Using the mapping=tex-text does it.
Concerning the fi (= fi) and fl (= fl) ligatures, though they exist in the
font Garamond (a True Type font), I cannot get them otherwise than
typing them dire
Am 04.12.2010 um 17:40 schrieb Joachim Trinkwitz:
Because you use a certain tool, it is more correct than other
people's? Isn't this a rather silly statement? Well, if you think
Linotypes font manager is lying on me, then you know better, I
suppose ... (even the fact that several tools sho
On 2010-12-04 17:40, Joachim Trinkwitz wrote:
> Am 04.12.2010 um 16:20 schrieb Pander:
>
>> Output of ttx provides more ligatures. I use ttx's output for my font
>> catalogue and for all other fonts, this info on ligatures is correct.
>
> Because you use a certain tool, it is more correct than ot
Am 04.12.2010 um 16:20 schrieb Pander:
> Output of ttx provides more ligatures. I use ttx's output for my font
> catalogue and for all other fonts, this info on ligatures is correct.
Because you use a certain tool, it is more correct than other people's? Isn't
this a rather silly statement? Well
On 2010-12-04 00:17, Joachim Trinkwitz wrote:
> Am 03.12.2010 um 16:30 schrieb Pander:
>
>> Another small font issue with XeLaTeX. The following
>>
>> \documentclass{article}
>> \usepackage{xltxtra}
>> \begin{document}
>> \fontspec{GilliusADF-Cond}\itshape
>> \addfontfeatures{Ligatures={Required,C
Am 03.12.2010 um 16:30 schrieb Pander:
> Another small font issue with XeLaTeX. The following
>
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{xltxtra}
> \begin{document}
> \fontspec{GilliusADF-Cond}\itshape
> \addfontfeatures{Ligatures={Required,Common,Rare}}AE~OE~ae~ff~ffi~ffl~fi~fl~oe~st
> \end{docum
Hi all,
Another small font issue with XeLaTeX. The following
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{xltxtra}
\begin{document}
\fontspec{GilliusADF-Cond}\itshape
\addfontfeatures{Ligatures={Required,Common,Rare}}AE~OE~ae~ff~ffi~ffl~fi~fl~oe~st
\end{document}
works fine in LuaLaTeX, but in XeLaTeX th
Am 20.11.2010 um 12:07 schrieb Jean-Claude Raoult:
and what about st and ct
In case they exist in some fonts you could make them available when
loading any of these fonts with special options. Here are some:
+smcp = small caps
+liga = common ligatures (on by default for L
There are two very different things involved here.
As John said in his reply, if you use the tex-text mapping then the en-
and em-dash TeX shorthands should work fine. These are not ligatures in
the true sense of the word (I know they are referred to as such in TeX,
unfortunately) and will no
Am 20.11.2010 um 12:07 schrieb Jean-Claude Raoult:
I am not fond of diving into metafont.
John already mentioned that some automatic ligatures are activated by
using the tex-text mapping when loading the font. The fonts XeTeX uses
are better not METAFONT based! These simple fonts have no
e. It may just be :+hist or some such, but
examining the properties of the font ought to give you accurate information
about that.
HTH
J
- Original Message -
From: "Jean-Claude Raoult"
To:
Sent: 20 November 2010 11:07
Subject: [XeTeX] ligatures in (plain) XeTeX
He
Hello,
My problem : getting ligatures with (plain) XeTeX, the engine being pdfTeX with
TeXShop.
I am using XeTeX on a iMac under OS X leopard, with a french keyboard (since I
am french).
The coding used is UTF-8.
A few tests with my preferred fonts (sorry, I am very traditional):
Apple G
Gareth,
Everything that Khaled said in his message is correct, particularly about
PDFs relying on glyph names and about not using the Unicode presentation
forms. My comments about ligatures not having PUA assignments were written
under the assumption that they were all correctly named (e.g.,
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 06:26:12PM +0100, Gareth Hughes wrote:
> David J. Perry wrote:
> > I am curious; are you using standard Unicode Syriac fonts? In such
> > fonts, there is no need for, nor should there be, PUA assignments for
> > the joined shapes. (And any font whose maker puts joined shap
David J. Perry wrote:
> I am curious; are you using standard Unicode Syriac fonts? In such
> fonts, there is no need for, nor should there be, PUA assignments for
> the joined shapes. (And any font whose maker puts joined shapes
> "somewhere that's going to spare" needs to go back to Unicode 101
Scripsit Gareth:
What is more, I do a lot of work with Syriac, a cursive script for which
most joined shapes are encoded in the PUA or somewhere that's going
spare. This means that my XeTeX PDFs aren't searchable or copyable in
Syriac. Only one or two Syriac letters per word can be searched or c
Ross Moore wrote:
> However, PDF has two separate mechanisms to overcome this.
>
> 1. a CMap resource for the font
> 2. the /ActualText tagging construction
>
> Concerning method 1. CMap resources:
>
> I don't know where that CMap resource is being constructed.
> Presumably it is by xdvip
Argh, this was not "off-list". Please accept
my apologies, and also keep the information in
this confidential.
Philip Taylor
Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
[Off-list] Have I told you that Thanh has created
a Win-32 version of the modified PdfTeX [...]
[Off-list] Have I told you that Thanh has created
a Win-32 version of the modified PdfTeX, and after
some (many !) trials and tribulations, I finally
persuaded it to work within a TeXlive framework ?
I am not yet certain that it is correct -- it seem
to see rather more debugging output from proce
Hi Andy,
On 08/06/2010, at 11:39 AM, Andy Lin wrote:
It seems I misunderstood what exactly the TECkit mapping does. All it
does is change the input as instructed. All other "features" --
copy/paste and search compatibility -- I'd assumed was attributed to
TECkit is actually that of the PDF read
June 07, 2010 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: [XeTeX] Ligatures and searching in PDFs
It seems I misunderstood what exactly the TECkit mapping does. All it
does is change the input as instructed. All other "features" --
copy/paste and search compatibility -- I'd assumed was attributed to
TEC
It seems I misunderstood what exactly the TECkit mapping does. All it
does is change the input as instructed. All other "features" --
copy/paste and search compatibility -- I'd assumed was attributed to
TECkit is actually that of the PDF reader (in my case, Adobe Reader).
So, when Adobe Reader enc
Andy Lin wrote:
> In order to make the common f/ff ligatures searchable in PDFs, add the
> following lines and compile the map file with teckit_compile (should
> be in the bin folder):
> U+0066 U+0066 <> U+FB00 ; ff -> ff ligature
> U+0066 U+0069 <> U+FB01 ; fi -> fi ligature
> U+0066 U
> One ting I'm wondering about: not all of the fonts I use always have
> all those ligatures. From what I understand from you, can't check
> right now, glyphs will be replaced usgin the mapping regardless of
> glyph availability, which would lead to missing glyphs in the docuemnt
> if not available
On 1 Jun 2010, at 19:12, Diederick C. Niehorster wrote:
> Would it therefore make more sense to put these mappings in a separate
> file and load that mapping as well when required? Can multiple
> mappings be loaded?
No. (But you can of course choose different mappings for different fonts,
accord
Hi Andy,
Thanks a lot for your post, this is very useful!
One ting I'm wondering about: not all of the fonts I use always have
all those ligatures. From what I understand from you, can't check
right now, glyphs will be replaced usgin the mapping regardless of
glyph availability, which would lead
Sorry to revive this topic, but I think I've found a solution.
The original post described a problem when using the rare ligatures
(e.g. "fty") in the Junicode font, in that the strings could not be
found by their decomposed characters. At the time, it was suggested
the /ActualText PDF feature wou
On 05/10/2010 03:36 AM, Janusz S. Bień wrote:
> On Mon, 10 May 2010 Paul Foley wrote:
>> Try the following:
>>
>> \documentclass{article}
>> \usepackage{xltxtra}
>> \setmainfont[Mapping=tex-text,Numbers=OldStyle,Ligatures={Required,Common,Rare}]{Junicode}
>>
>> \begin{document}
>> Fifty afflicted
Meho R. wrote:
So, what we have concluded: that we have accsupp and Junicode. But can
anyone show how to solve this problem using the example in OP's post?
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{xltxtra}
\setmainfont[Mapping=tex-text,Numbers=OldStyle,Ligatures={Required,Common,Rare}]{Junicode}
\b
ument}
Fifty afflicted fjords.
\end{document}
From: Janusz S. Bień
To: Khaled Hosny
Cc: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms
Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 5:04:58 AM
Subject: Re: [XeTeX] Ligatures and searching in PDFs
On Tue, 11 May 2010 Khaled Hosny
Peter Dyballa wrote:
Am 11.05.2010 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Baker:
the version I posted the other day
This seems to have exactly the same version number as the font files
which came with TeX Live 2009...
I didn't change the number because it wasn't an official release. I
probably should ha
Am 11.05.2010 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Baker:
the version I posted the other day
This seems to have exactly the same version number as the font files
which came with TeX Live 2009...
--
Greetings
Pete
To drink without thirst and to make love all the time, madam, it is
only these which
On 5/10/10 11:04 PM, Janusz S. Bień wrote:
You are right:
http://www.tex.ac.uk/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/oberdiek/accsupp.pdf
I was not aware of it.
Best regards
Janusz
I've been very concerned about the searchability of PDFs and have begun
to build Junicode in such a way that l
On Tue, 11 May 2010 Khaled Hosny wrote:
[...]
> IIRC, there are already latex packages that adds higher level support
> for ActualText tags (low level support is already in the engines).
You are right:
http://www.tex.ac.uk/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/oberdiek/accsupp.pdf
I was not awar
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 04:26:11AM +0200, Janusz S. Bień wrote:
> On Mon, 10 May 2010 "David J. Perry" wrote:
>
> >>
> >> The proper solution would be to use /ActualText feature of the PDF
> >> specification.
> >
> > I am very interested in this issue of searching PDFs. A google search for
> >
On Mon, 10 May 2010 "David J. Perry" wrote:
>>
>> The proper solution would be to use /ActualText feature of the PDF
>> specification.
>
> I am very interested in this issue of searching PDFs. A google search for
> "PDF Actual Text" turned up nothing. I then downloaded the actual PDF spec
>
The proper solution would be to use /ActualText feature of the PDF
specification.
I am very interested in this issue of searching PDFs. A google search for
"PDF Actual Text" turned up nothing. I then downloaded the actual PDF spec
from the Adobe web site and found the reference, and got the
On Mon, 10 May 2010 Paul Foley wrote:
> 1. (*) text/plain ( ) text/html
>
> Try the following:
>
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{xltxtra}
> \setmainfont[Mapping=tex-text,Numbers=OldStyle,Ligatures={Required,Common,Rare}]{Junicode}
>
> \begin{document}
> Fifty afflict
Try the following:
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{xltxtra}
\setmainfont[Mapping=tex-text,Numbers=OldStyle,Ligatures={Required,Common,Rare}]{Junicode}
\begin{document}
Fifty afflicted fjords.
\end{document}
Load the PDF, and search for any of the words.
The "fty", "ct" and "fj" ligatures ar
51 matches
Mail list logo
