On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Arthur Reutenauer < arthur.reutena...@normalesup.org> wrote:
> > Guys! I have access to that font(DV-TTSurekh-Normal). > > It's not the one Mike used, he mentioned SD-TTSurekh. In fact, a > Google search for DV-TTSurekh gives as first hit a link to download it, > without any indication as to the legality of this. > > But what you say probably applies to SD-TTSurekh as well: > > > As far as I know it > is > > said that font is made in 1996-97. And it in no way a Unicode OpenType > Font. > > It is an ASCII hack font for Devanagari. The Devanagari glyph are draw in > > latin names. So, for example when you type a you will get क as glyph of > a. > > According to http://fr.fontstock.net/11471/sd-ttsurekh-normal.html > where you can see samples, the glyph for क is encoded at E, not a. But > it's not at all Unicode-compliant anyway. > > I was just giving example just in case how hack fonts work. Not showing real encoding. ;) > > So just telling fontspec the font name will not work of that font as I > know. > > Indeed no. > > Arthur > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- Ujjwol Lamichhane http://ujjwol.com.np/
-------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
