On 24/2/16 23:31, Will Robertson wrote:
On 24 Feb 2016, at 2:20 AM, Jonathan Kew <jfkth...@gmail.com> wrote:For a document that wants some other kind of "ActualText", there's going to need to be pretty detailed markup in the source, I think. (E.g. each word, or similar unit, will need to be tagged to provide the desired ActualText that goes with it.) At that point, I wonder if turning off \XeTeXgenerateactualtext and just doing it "manually" with macros that generate \special{}s would be the most reasonable way forward.This sounds interesting for maths, where there is a chance we could automatically insert \special{}s at the glyph and/or the equation level — has this always been possible in XeTeX or does this require the newest patch for xdvipdfmx you just released?
The xdvipdfmx patch does not have any effect on \special{} handling; the implementation of \XeTeXgenerateactualtext doesn't put traditional "special"s in the output, it uses a new DVI opcode to provide the text+glyphs for each word.
I'd guess it has always been possible, in principle, to attach ActualText to math at the macro level, using \specials{}s to write the necessary PDF code directly. But I confess I haven't really looked into what this would involve.... perhaps there are obstacles that make it impractical.
JK -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
