On 2010-06-15 16:23:33 -0700, Michael Lynch
said:
I've come across a conflict between the unicode-math and acronym packages.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for reporting this. unicode-math gets its definitions from the
STIX fonts, and the complete list (some 2400 symbols) has been
partially invented
On 16/06/2010 00:49, Khaled Hosny wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 02:38:51AM +0300, Khaled Hosny wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:23:33AM +0100, Michael Lynch wrote:
Hello all,
I've come across a conflict between the unicode-math and acronym packages.
If I run xelatex on the test fi
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 02:38:51AM +0300, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:23:33AM +0100, Michael Lynch wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I've come across a conflict between the unicode-math and acronym packages.
> >
> > If I run xelatex on the test file I've attached, I get the expec
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:23:33AM +0100, Michael Lynch wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've come across a conflict between the unicode-math and acronym packages.
>
> If I run xelatex on the test file I've attached, I get the expected
> results (i.e. the acronyms work correctly). This is seen in
> Acrony
Hello all,
I've come across a conflict between the unicode-math and acronym packages.
If I run xelatex on the test file I've attached, I get the expected
results (i.e. the acronyms work correctly). This is seen in AcronymTest.pdf.
However, if I uncomment the lines relating to unicode-math (i.
