BTW, the problem occurs even if you use Latin Modern Roman and specify:
\setmainfont[Numbers={OldStyle, Proportional}]{Latin Modern Roman}
--
United in adoration of Jesus,
fr. michael gilmary, mma
Most Holy Trinity Monastery
67 Dugway Road
Petersham, MA 01366-9725
www.MaroniteMonks.org
Hi,
if I input an ellipsis via the unicode symbol (…=u2026) or via \dots I
get in both variants a pdf in which I can select the three dots only as
a whole. If I copy them to the editor (gedit), I get different results
depending on whether I copy from acroread or from evince. (I use ubuntu
10
> Why is that? I would like it, that the symbol is always copy-pasted as
> an ellipsis.
You can't control that: it's a choice of the application (isn't that
obvious from the experiment you conducted?). What happens with evince
is a reasonable solution, using the compatibility decomposition of
Tobias Schoel wrote:
Hi,
if I input an ellipsis via the unicode symbol (…=u2026) or via \dots I
get in both variants a pdf in which I can select the three dots only as
a whole. If I copy them to the editor (gedit), I get different results
depending on whether I copy from acroread or from evinc
> That would seem, in all fairness, to be a question to aim
> solely at the authors of Evince, since both the XeTeX and
> the Adobe side of things seems to be behaving perfectly.
Note that decomposing the characters when copying it is not even
necessarily a bad decision: using compatibility deco
Ok, I thought that the reason might be some "alternative text"-feature
which was used by one application but not by the other.
Thanks.
bye
Toscho
Am 16.12.2010 19:49, schrieb Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd):
Tobias Schoel wrote:
Hi,
if I input an ellipsis via the unicode symbol (…=u2026
