Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Hi Adam, Yes, LuaTeX is a evolving project, especially at the lowest level. Am 01.08.2012 um 02:54 schrieb Adam Twardoch (List) : > On 31.07.2012, at 13:02, Peter Dyballa wrote: > >> it's questionable whether it's worth when XeTeX has reached its end of life >> cycle and LuaTeX is taking over

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

On 31/07/2012 18:06, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > Lua(La)TeX is a move in this direction. Modernizing TeX!! Well, yes and no. The problem with all the TeX engines, the elephant in the room that nobody's talking about, is TeX itself. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great piece of code, and it's

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 02:54:32 +0200 schrieb Adam Twardoch (List): > If LuaTeX was PythonTeX, I'd adopt it instantly. Well some days ago I tried to use otfinst.py. The version on CTAN mixes tabs and spaces and used an obsolete syntax for print. My python didn't like both. To correct the second was n

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Simon Cozens : > On 31/07/2012 18:06, Keith J. Schultz wrote: >> Lua(La)TeX is a move in this direction. Modernizing TeX!! > > Well, yes and no. > > The problem with all the TeX engines, the elephant in the room that nobody's > talking about, is TeX itself. Don't get me wrong, I think it's

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Ulrike Fischer wrote: Well some days ago I tried to use otfinst.py. The version on CTAN mixes tabs and spaces and used an obsolete syntax for print. My python didn't like both. To correct the second was not so difficult, but the first was really trying. How to you get correct identation when y

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

On 01/08/2012 17:31, Zdenek Wagner wrote: result with pure MF. Virtual fonts have to remedy the deficiencies of encoding. The Latin alphabet for all languages (including Vietnamese) contains 500+ characters but the non-Unicode encodings allow 256. NFSS/VF (and to some degree XeTeX) wasn't just

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Philip TAYLOR : > If I /were/ to propose a replacement language, I would strongly > advocate JavaScript, which has almost universal uptake, adoption > and acceptance. From a purely personal perspective, I would also When LuaTeX started I also toyed with the idea and had a look at JavaScr

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Keith J. Schultz : > Hi Adam, > > Yes, LuaTeX is a evolving project, especially at the lowest level. > Am 01.08.2012 um 02:54 schrieb Adam Twardoch (List) : > >> On 31.07.2012, at 13:02, Peter Dyballa wrote: >> >>> it's questionable whether it's worth when XeTeX has reached its end of lif

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Simon Cozens : > On 01/08/2012 17:31, Zdenek Wagner wrote: >> >> result with pure MF. Virtual fonts have to remedy the deficiencies of >> encoding. The Latin alphabet for all languages (including Vietnamese) >> contains 500+ characters but the non-Unicode encodings allow 256. > > > NFSS/VF

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Simon Cozens wrote: My feeling is that it's time to accept the principle of "one to throw away" and finally put TeX82 out to pasture. Now we are blessed with a set of technologies which have proved themselves, which give great results on modern systems and have support for problems which were

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Hi Zdenek, I believe well are pretty much inline with each other. Am 01.08.2012 um 10:48 schrieb Zdenek Wagner : > 2012/8/1 Keith J. Schultz : >> Hi Adam, >> >> Yes, LuaTeX is a evolving project, especially at the lowest level. >> Am 01.08.2012 um 02:54 schrieb Adam Twardoch (List) :

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Keith J. Schultz : > Hi Zdenek, > > I believe well are pretty much inline with each other. > > > > Am 01.08.2012 um 10:48 schrieb Zdenek Wagner : > >> 2012/8/1 Keith J. Schultz : >>> Hi Adam, >>> >>> Yes, LuaTeX is a evolving project, especially at the lowest level. >>> Am 01.08.20

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Am 01.08.2012 um 10:31 schrieb Zdenek Wagner : [snip, snip] > XeTeX is not a remedy to TFM deficiencies, it is again the remedy of > encoding deficiencies. It won't be that difficult to extend TFM but > implementation of Unicode and support for comlpex Arabic and Asian > scripts required complex

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Keith J. Schultz : > > Am 01.08.2012 um 10:31 schrieb Zdenek Wagner : > > [snip, snip] > >> XeTeX is not a remedy to TFM deficiencies, it is again the remedy of >> encoding deficiencies. It won't be that difficult to extend TFM but >> implementation of Unicode and support for comlpex Arabi

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Martin Schröder wrote: When LuaTeX started I also toyed with the idea and had a look at JavaScript interpreters - they were much larger. Large enough to have any significant impact on a modern machine, which one might reasonably expect to have 4Gb of RAM ? Size mattered when Don wrote TeX;

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:32:16 +0200 schrieb Keith J. Schultz: > LuaTeX has a very small developer base and their goal is very > high. a long needed rewrite of TeX. That is a complex task. > From the simple user side. LuaTeX is about as easy as it gets. For > most purpose I can teach you all

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

This has been a very long threat and I admit not having read all mails. But I can resist sharing my opinion with you. LuaTeX and XeTeX use two quite different strategies and therefore address different user communities: the former follows Knuth's philosophy of TeX being independent of other tec

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Philip TAYLOR : > Martin Schröder wrote: >> When LuaTeX started I also toyed with the idea and had a look at >> JavaScript interpreters - they were much larger. > > Large enough to have any significant impact on a modern machine, > which one might reasonably expect to have 4Gb of RAM ? Si

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Ulrike Fischer : > Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:32:16 +0200 schrieb Keith J. Schultz: > >> LuaTeX has a very small developer base and their goal is very >> high. a long needed rewrite of TeX. That is a complex task. > >> From the simple user side. LuaTeX is about as easy as it gets. For >> most p

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:30:52 +0200 schrieb Zdenek Wagner: >> (As an aside I think that one should not only put pressure on >> xetex/luatex/open type engines to support all sorts of open type >> features and scripts but also on some scripts to adapt a bit to the >> computer age.) > Do you mean it?

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Well, you could always write your own JavaScript interpreter in Lua and get the best of both worlds :-) Martin Schröder wrote: bably not. IIRC the binaries where around 75 KB (Lua) and 750 KB(JS). Compare this with 1 MB for a recent Knuthian TeX binary (on Linux) and 2 MB for pdfTeX. JS was sim

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Philip TAYLOR : > Well, you could always write your own JavaScript interpreter > in Lua and get the best of both worlds :-) http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10259842/would-it-make-sense-to-run-javascript-on-the-lua-vm We are all very eagerly awaiting your contributions. I seem to reme

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Ulrike Fischer : > Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:30:52 +0200 schrieb Zdenek Wagner: > >>> (As an aside I think that one should not only put pressure on >>> xetex/luatex/open type engines to support all sorts of open type >>> features and scripts but also on some scripts to adapt a bit to the >>> c

Re: [XeTeX] resolution (was Re: The future of XeTeX)

On Jul 31, 2012, at 6:02 PM, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > You are only partially correct. Yes, you can create very fine structures > off the glyphs. Yet, is only a part of the picture. > > You forget interword spacing and kerning. Gutenberg, could never match > the resolution of microtype. I give

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

On 2012-08-01 01:48, Arthur Reutenauer wrote: How does this affect what one can do with lua in luatex? It does not, really. And this is not relevant to a discussion about XeTeX. It is, since it may determine how dependent I and others may

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Martin Schröder wrote: I seem to remember a Java reimplementation of TeX managed by you... So do I, Martin, very clearly indeed. And I also remember e-TeX, developed within the same project team and as important today as it was during its evolutionary years. It is in the nature of both sof

Re: [XeTeX] resolution (was Re: The future of XeTeX)

2012/8/1 William Adams : > On Jul 31, 2012, at 6:02 PM, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > >> You are only partially correct. Yes, you can create very fine structures >> off the glyphs. Yet, is only a part of the picture. >> >> You forget interword spacing and kerning. Gutenberg, could never match >> the re

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 BPJ : > On 2012-08-01 01:48, Arthur Reutenauer wrote: > >>> How does this >>> affect what one can do with lua in luatex? >> >> >>It does not, really. And this is not relevant to a discussion about >> XeTeX. > > > It is, since it may de

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Some comments from a long time lurker here on this mailing list: I've been following this discussion with great interest but unfortunately it follows the same pattern of many similar discussions in the past. The question on how things could be improved is soon split up into various, often very t

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Ulrike Fischer wrote: Well you only confirm my impression: That quite a lot of scripts never felt the pressure put on us by the movable type printing. Is that not good ? Would Chinese calligraphy look anywhere near as beautiful if its glyph forms had been forcibly coerced into meeting the c

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Simon Spiegel : > Some comments from a long time lurker here on this mailing list: I've been > following this discussion with great interest but unfortunately it follows > the same pattern of many similar discussions in the past. The question on how > things could be improved is soon sp

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Philip TAYLOR wrote: > Is that not good ? Would Chinese calligraphy look anywhere near > as beautiful if its glyph forms had been forcibly coerced into > meeting the constraints imposed by movable type printing ? The question is whether the machine or the human being should be

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

> > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:47:50 +0200 > From: Zdenek Wagner > To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms > Subject: Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-2" > > 2012/8/1 Simon Spiegel : >> Some comments f

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Simon Spiegel wrote: From: Zdenek Wagner There was a problem with polyglossia because Fran?oise Charette left academia and no longer had time to maintain it. The current maintainer is Arthur Reutenauer. I hope that a few volunteers could help him. Microtypography is not just a matter of th

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

> Martin Schröder wrote: >> And JS isn't designed for embedding Interesting. I must admit that so far, I've *only* used JavaScript as an embedded language -- starting with every web browser, plus most Adobe applications, OpenOffice, as well pretty much all of Microsoft Office applications (through

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

On 01.08.2012, at 15:10, Philip TAYLOR wrote: > > > Simon Spiegel wrote: > >>> From: Zdenek Wagner > >>> There was a problem with polyglossia because Fran?oise Charette >>> left academia and no longer had time to maintain it. The current >>> maintainer is Arthur Reutenauer. I hope that a fe

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 11:58:31 +0100 schrieb Philip TAYLOR: >> Well you only confirm my impression: That quite a lot of scripts >> never felt the pressure put on us by the movable type printing. > Is that not good ? Would Chinese calligraphy look anywhere near > as beautiful if its glyph forms had

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Dear Adrian, We shouldn't forget the quiet statement by Khaled Hosny, earlier in this discussion, that he is "tentatively" maintaining XeTeX, with funding from TUG and Jonathan's oversight. In my view this is all good, and gives me confidence

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Simon Spiegel wrote: > And it might be a good idea to come up with ideas how we can find this someone. "ideas how we can ..." involves discussion, unless you are advocating implementation by fiat, which I am sure you are not. So what it would seem you are advocating is that we cease technic

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Ulrike Fischer : > Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 11:58:31 +0100 schrieb Philip TAYLOR: > >>> Well you only confirm my impression: That quite a lot of scripts >>> never felt the pressure put on us by the movable type printing. > >> Is that not good ? Would Chinese calligraphy look anywhere near >> as

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

On 01.08.2012, at 15:45, Philip TAYLOR wrote: > > > Simon Spiegel wrote: > > > And it might be a good idea to come up with ideas how we can find this > > someone. > > "ideas how we can ..." involves discussion, unless you are > advocating implementation by fiat, which I am sure you are > no

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Simon Spiegel wrote: I guess it is of little or no concern if you're not interested in actually getting something done. As a user I'm much more interested in how I can get working tools. Then you probably use LaTeX and packages. I use plain TeX, because I am just as interested in solving th

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Simon Spiegel : > > On 01.08.2012, at 15:45, Philip TAYLOR wrote: > >> >> >> Simon Spiegel wrote: >> >> > And it might be a good idea to come up with ideas how we can find this >> > someone. >> >> "ideas how we can ..." involves discussion, unless you are >> advocating implementation by

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Hello. Around here there are some Indian people whose language uses Devanagari (but there would be similar issues with other scripts), and some Sanskrit and Hindi scholars as well. I wonder how many would accept to read what is below (produced by LuaLaTeX), instead of किमिति. Best wishes, Yve

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Philip TAYLOR : > > > Simon Spiegel wrote: > >> I guess it is of little or no concern if you're not interested in >> actually getting something done. As a user I'm much more interested >> in how I can get working tools. > > > Then you probably use LaTeX and packages. I use plain TeX, beca

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:54:37 +0200 schrieb Zdenek Wagner: > LuaTeX can be considered a flavour of TeX thus if XeTeX can load a > font and use the glyphs as they are now and compose them to form a > word, I do not understand why a change in the script is needed. LuaTeX > is not able to form a word f

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Yves Codet : > Hello. > > Around here there are some Indian people whose language uses Devanagari (but > there would be similar issues with other scripts), and some Sanskrit and > Hindi scholars as well. I wonder how many would accept to read what is below > (produced by LuaLaTeX), inst

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: The question is whether the machine or the human being should be master. I see no question. And I do not think that Zen masters or master calligraphers would, either. It is only those for whom "it must compute" is a mantra that could conceivably believe othe

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Ulrike Fischer : > Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:54:37 +0200 schrieb Zdenek Wagner: > >> LuaTeX can be considered a flavour of TeX thus if XeTeX can load a >> font and use the glyphs as they are now and compose them to form a >> word, I do not understand why a change in the script is needed. LuaTe

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:59:55 +0200 schrieb Zdenek Wagner: >> I didn't say that "a change is needed", only that the complexity of >> some scripts are part of the problem: complex scripts means complex >> code and people who write, test, maintain, extend this code. And >> such people are not always a

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Ulrike Fischer : > Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:59:55 +0200 schrieb Zdenek Wagner: > >>> I didn't say that "a change is needed", only that the complexity of >>> some scripts are part of the problem: complex scripts means complex >>> code and people who write, test, maintain, extend this code. And

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Hi Ulrike, Am 01.08.2012 um 12:13 schrieb Ulrike Fischer : > Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:32:16 +0200 schrieb Keith J. Schultz: > >> From the simple user side. LuaTeX is about as easy as it gets. For >> most purpose I can teach you all you need to know how to use Lua >> for TeX in 2 hours! > > The pro

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Zdenek Wagner : > 2012/8/1 Ulrike Fischer : >> Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:59:55 +0200 schrieb Zdenek Wagner: >> I didn't say that "a change is needed", only that the complexity of some scripts are part of the problem: complex scripts means complex code and people who write, test,

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Ulrike Fischer wrote: > Perhaps (the discussion is rather long). But you obviously don't > accept my conclusion that one possible solution is to reduce the > complexity of the script. You are only looking for the people who > should write all this complex code. Language is inhe

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Hi Zdenek, Am 01.08.2012 um 13:22 schrieb Zdenek Wagner : > 2012/8/1 Ulrike Fischer : >> Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:30:52 +0200 schrieb Zdenek Wagner: >> >> Well you only confirm my impression: That quite a lot of scripts >> never felt the pressure put on us by the movable type printing. >> Western g

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 : > On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Ulrike Fischer wrote: >> Perhaps (the discussion is rather long). But you obviously don't >> accept my conclusion that one possible solution is to reduce the >> complexity of the script. You are only looking for the people who >> should write all this complex code.

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Keith J. Schultz : > Hi Zdenek, > > Am 01.08.2012 um 13:22 schrieb Zdenek Wagner : > >> 2012/8/1 Ulrike Fischer : >>> Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:30:52 +0200 schrieb Zdenek Wagner: >>> >>> Well you only confirm my impression: That quite a lot of scripts >>> never felt the pressure put on us by t

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Hi Zdenek, Do you know what a script is? XeTeX uses scripts! The the choice of a glyph is governed by a script.! Depending of the Font this is embedded into the Font itself or at least should be. Polyglossia offers another way of scripting. That it why I emphasize the port of Polyglossia to LuaTe

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Zdenek Wagner wrote: > > That is the line of thinking that would favour Graphite (a general system > > for defining complex scripts inside fonts) over OpenType (which requires > That's right but we still have a lot of non-Graphite fonts. We also don't have much enthusiasm, as

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Ulrike Fischer wrote: Perhaps (the discussion is rather long). But you obviously don't accept my conclusion that one possible solution is to reduce the complexity of the script. You are only looking for the people who should write all this complex code. Ulrike, Ulrike, you are normally so cl

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:54:25 +0200 schrieb Keith J. Schultz: > That it why I emphasize the port of Polyglossia to LuaTeX. > Then Devagari would work for LuaTeX. I doubt this very much. The problem as far as I understood it is the handling of the font itself. If the problem would lie only in some

Re: [XeTeX] resolution (was Re: The future of XeTeX)

Hi Zdenek, you and William are missing my point. it does not matter. I believe you do not understand the full protential of modern typography, font format and the use of TeX. Glyphs need not be based on an particualar form in every situation. There are ways to have different Glyphs as Gutenberg

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

It looks like something is happening there: https://github.com/reutenauer/polyglossia/commit/45f2cb69b1ea3c388a7888374fff71e7d1a1479a Am 01.08.2012 17:55 schrieb "Keith J. Schultz" : > Hi Zdenek, > > Do you know what a script is? XeTeX uses scripts! The the choice of a glyph > is governed by a sc

Re: [XeTeX] resolution (was Re: The future of XeTeX)

2012/8/1 Keith J. Schultz : > Hi Zdenek, > > you and William are missing my point. it does not matter. > > I believe you do not understand the full protential of modern typography, > font format and the use of TeX. > > Glyphs need not be based on an particualar form in every situation. There > are

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Keith J. Schultz wrote: That is probaly teh biggest turn off to LuaTeX. They should some people in as far as coding is concerned. The missing documentation is something I would call a cardinal offense. For something that is free (in the real sense of the word,

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Keith J. Schultz : > Hi Zdenek, > > Do you know what a script is? XeTeX uses scripts! The the choice of a glyph > is governed by a script.! Depending of the Font this is embedded into the Font > itself or at least should be. Polyglossia offers another way of scripting. > > That it why I em

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Ha, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to notice :-) I just started porting Polyglossia to LuaTeX. I didn't have time to do much yet, but I expect it's going to be a matter of days till all the gloss files work. For the moment, all the languages relying on XeTeX's inter-chara

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Arthur Reutenauer : > Ha, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to notice :-) > > I just started porting Polyglossia to LuaTeX. I didn't have time to > do much yet, but I expect it's going to be a matter of days till all the > gloss files work. For the moment, all the la

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:17:15 +0100 schrieb Philip TAYLOR: > Keith J. Schultz wrote: > >> That is probaly teh biggest turn off to LuaTeX. >> They should some people in as far as coding is concerned. >> The missing documentation is something I would call a cardinal >> offense. >

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Hi Zdenek, I am perfectly, able to learn what I need to learn. I am perfectly able to program in almost any programming langauge. TeX is one that I can directly program in because I simple can grasp its philosophy. The biggest problem to all this at what is needed is so essential, that without th

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Ulrike Fischer : > Am Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:17:15 +0100 schrieb Philip TAYLOR: > >> Keith J. Schultz wrote: >> >>> That is probaly teh biggest turn off to LuaTeX. >>> They should some people in as far as coding is concerned. >>> The missing documentation is something I would ca

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Keith J. Schultz : > Hi Zdenek, > > I am perfectly, able to learn what I need to learn. I am perfectly able > to program in almost any programming langauge. TeX is one that I > can directly program in because I simple can grasp its philosophy. > > The biggest problem to all this at what is

Re: [XeTeX] resolution (was Re: The future of XeTeX)

Am 01.08.2012 um 18:56 schrieb Zdenek Wagner : > 2012/8/1 Keith J. Schultz : >> Hi Zdenek, >> >> [snip, snip] > No, microtype does not offer more glyphs, it offers glyph distorted in > many different ratios. Multiple Master Fonts would be able to solve it > in a better way but they were declar

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Let me try to focus this discussion back to a more general level. Keep in mind that I am a scholar and sometime font creator, not a programmer. A great many people, myself included, must use non-Latin scripts in their work. They may also need to produce typographically sophisticated document

Re: [XeTeX] resolution (was Re: The future of XeTeX)

2012/8/1 Keith J. Schultz : > > Am 01.08.2012 um 18:56 schrieb Zdenek Wagner : > >> 2012/8/1 Keith J. Schultz : >>> Hi Zdenek, >>> >>> > [snip, snip] > >> No, microtype does not offer more glyphs, it offers glyph distorted in >> many different ratios. Multiple Master Fonts would be able to solve it

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

Zdenek Wagner wrote: !cibarA ot tebaphla nitaL eth tpada ot decrof erew ew fi neppah dlouw tahw enigami dnA ... "eht", not "eth" :-) -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/1 Philip TAYLOR : > > > Zdenek Wagner wrote: > >> !cibarA ot tebaphla nitaL eth tpada ot decrof erew ew fi neppah dlouw >> tahw enigami dnA > > > ... "eht", not "eth" :-) > Thank you for correcting my misprint. > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

> > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:12:20 +0100 > From: Arthur Reutenauer > To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms > Subject: Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX > Message-ID: <20120801171220.gp6...@phare.normalesup.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > >

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, David Perry wrote: > Yes, there are flaws in XeTeX, e.g., in connection with Hangul support. But I I think XeTeX actually works quite well with hangul if the appropriate features are turned on, and it sounds like their not being so was a bug that's easy to fix. It was already

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

> Whenever anything is available for testing, I can try some Czech and > Slovak texts. Thanks. I will let you know when it's ready to be tested. >> Arabic should work fine, but I'm not even sure about Syriac, for >> example. > > How about Urdu? It will be difficult for me but I can try to run

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 10:41:25PM +0100, Arthur Reutenauer wrote: > >> Arabic should work fine, but I'm not even sure about Syriac, for > >> example. > > > > How about Urdu? It will be difficult for me but I can try to run some tests. > > I don't think it would work, actually. I should have wr

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

My wondering was more whether what ConTeXt implements was actually enough for Urdu (and other languages). As far as I know Oriental TeX is only concerned with Arabic texts. But it's entirely possible that Urdu would just work out of the box with ConTeXt / luaotfload's shaping engine. A

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 11:37:31PM +0100, Arthur Reutenauer wrote: > My wondering was more whether what ConTeXt implements was actually > enough for Urdu (and other languages). As far as I know Oriental TeX is > only concerned with Arabic texts. But it's entirely possible that Urdu > would just

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

> I remember specifically testing some Nastaliq fonts and Hans fixing some > small issues I found, I just tested again now and IranNastaliq seems to > work OK cool, good to know. Arthur -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, et

Re: [XeTeX] The future of XeTeX

2012/8/2 Arthur Reutenauer : >> I remember specifically testing some Nastaliq fonts and Hans fixing some >> small issues I found, I just tested again now and IranNastaliq seems to >> work > > OK cool, good to know. > It's just a matter of a few characters that are used in Urdu but not in Arabic.

[XeTeX] Nastaliq [was: The future of XeTeX]

On 8/1/2012 6:48 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote: I remember specifically testing some Nastaliq fonts and Hans fixing some small issues I found, I just tested again now and IranNastaliq seems to work (my fork of Nafees Nastaleeq is broken though, but it uses an OpenType GDEF feature not supported by LuaTe

Re: [XeTeX] Nastaliq [was: The future of XeTeX]

Nastaliq OpenType fonts typically use the GPOS LookupType 3 (cursive attachment), which is not supported by some of the more simple-minded OpenType Layout engines. A. Sent from my mobile phone. On 02.08.2012, at 04:28, Mike Maxwell wrote: > On 8/1/2012 6:48 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote: >> I remem