I posted this to the XeTeX sourceforge tracker a couple of weeks ago,
and it was suggested that I also mention it here. The sourceforge
ticket is
https://sourceforge.net/p/xetex/bugs/111/
and the zip file is
https://sourceforge.net/p/xetex/bugs/111/attachment/xetex-indic-bug.zip
Cheers
Hi David,
as far as I understand rendering Devanagari fonts, this is handled by
the GPOS tables. I would therefore suspect a bug in the font that
should be reported to the font desogner. I do not know Snaskrit, I am
not able to judge whether the positions of Vedic accents are correct
or not. Could
On 2015-05-22 10:14, David M. Jones wrote:
...
P.S. There's actually a third class of bug that is clearly visible in
the table at the top of my document, but which I didn't mention
explicitly: XeTeX won't typeset one of the Devanagari combining
characters in isolation without adding a prothetic d
On 2015-05-22 10:49, maxwell wrote:
> On 2015-05-22 10:14, David M. Jones wrote:
>> ...
>> P.S. There's actually a third class of bug that is clearly visible in
>> the table at the top of my document, but which I didn't mention
>> explicitly: XeTeX won't typeset one of the Devanagari combining
>> c
On 2015-05-22 14:24, Bobby de Vos wrote:
Some minority languages (that is, not the dominate language using a
particular script) often use combining marks in ways not envisioned in
order to extend the script to cover all the sounds in the minority
language. So for those minority languages, having
Mike Maxwell's original post hasn't shown up here yet, so I'm lumping
two responses together.
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 12:24:49 -0600
> From: Bobby de Vos
> Reply-To: "XeTeX (Unicode-based TeX) discussion."
>
> On 2015-05-22 10:49, maxwell wrote:
> > On 2015-05-22 10:14, David M. Jones wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 17:18:34 +0200
> From: Zdenek Wagner
>
> Hi David,
>
> as far as I understand rendering Devanagari fonts, this is handled by
> the GPOS tables. I would therefore suspect a bug in the font that
> should be reported to the font desogner.
The fact that luaTeX renders the e
Atta boy! You tell 'em! Take THAT!
SGM
> On May 22, 2015, at 4:37 PM, David M. Jones wrote:
>
>> Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 17:18:34 +0200
>> From: Zdenek Wagner
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> as far as I understand rendering Devanagari fonts, this is handled by
>> the GPOS tables. I would therefore su
2015-05-22 21:14 GMT+02:00 David M. Jones :
> Mike Maxwell's original post hasn't shown up here yet, so I'm lumping
> two responses together.
>
>> Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 12:24:49 -0600
>> From: Bobby de Vos
>> Reply-To: "XeTeX (Unicode-based TeX) discussion."
>>
>> On 2015-05-22 10:49, maxwell wr
Den 2015-05-22 21:14, David M. Jones skrev:
Arguably, it never is -- if you want a dotted circle, you can add it
yourself, whereas it's not at all unusual to want to show combining
marks in isolation in, say, textbooks.
Showing it with a dotted circle as stand in for a base character,
whether
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 04:49:58PM -0400, Stephen Moye wrote:
> Atta boy! You tell 'em! Take THAT!
Was that really meant for the list?
Arthur
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Alas, no.
SGM
> On May 22, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Arthur Reutenauer
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 04:49:58PM -0400, Stephen Moye wrote:
>> Atta boy! You tell 'em! Take THAT!
> Was that really meant for the list?
>
> Arthur
>
>
> --
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 22:52:24 +0200
> From: Zdenek Wagner
> The requirement of the Indic specification is to display the dotted
> circle if the mark cannot be combined.
Aha! Thank you the pointer. I assume you're referring to this?
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otfntdev/indicot/
> Also, the original version of xetex was developed by SIL (SIL
> also has some useful fonts), and SIL works with such minority languages
> exclusively. So while it may be possible for the *tex engine or fonts to
> omit the dotted circle, it doesn't seem to be a very high priority.
> First, this is only describing how Uniscribe handles this situation;
> its not clear that makes this behaviour a normative part of the Indic
> script specification.
Well, unfortunately, Uniscribe was for years the reference
implementation, and there was no formal Indic script specification, so
15 matches
Mail list logo
