Re: [XeTeX] Incorrect rendering of Vedic Sanskrit accents
Thank you! Yes, that does explain almost everything. I'm pretty sure
I read that section, but I obviously completely failed to understood
it, possibly because I didn't understand that svara didn't refer to
vowels. (Ghu only knows what I made of the passage.)
There's still the problem of the combination of visarga plus accent:
in the examples, the accents should be centered on the ta, not on the
visarga, yes? I don't know if that's a problem with the shaping
engine or with the font, though.
I'll update the sourceforge ticket and the sample files.
Best wishes,
David.
P.S. I just noticed that my comments about the accents and Devanagari
digits is out-of-date: somehow I didn't notice that they work in the
latest version of XeTeX. I think the udatta should be better
centered, but that looks like a problem with the font.
From: ShreeDevi Kumar shreesh...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 11:00:09 +0530
Please see http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode7.0.0/ch12.pdf
Page 443 and 444
Rule R10
Modifier Mark Rules.
In addition to vowel signs, three other types of combining marks may be
applied to a component of an orthographic syllable or to the syllable as a
whole: nukta, bindus, and svaras.
R10
Other modifying marks, in particular bindus and svaras, apply to the
orthographic syllable as a whole and should follow (in the memory
representation) all other characters that constitute the syllable.* The
bindus should follow any vowel signs, and the svaras should come last.*
As per the above, \V{Violet} marks a semantically invalid reordering of
the Unicode characters that happens to produce acceptable output. is
actually the correct ordering of unicode characters:
ta̍ṃ ta + udatta + anusvara \R{\1त॑ं}\\
taṃ̍ ta + anusvara + udatta \V{\1तं॑} \\
ta̱ṃ ta + anudatta + anusvara \R{\1त॒ं}\\
taṃ̱ ta + anusvara + anudatta \V{\1तं॒} \\[\medskipamount]
ta̍m̐ ta + udatta + candrabindu \R{\1त॑ँ}\\
tam̐̍ ta + candrabindu + udatta \V{\1तँ॑} \\
ta̱m̐ ta + anudatta + candrabindu \R{\1त॒ँ}\\
tam̱̐ ta + candrabindu + anudatta \V{\1तँ॒} \\[\medskipamount]
ta̍ḥ ta + udatta + visarga \R{\1त॑ः}\\
taḥ̍ ta + visarga + udatta \B{\1तः॑} \\
ta̱ḥ ta + anudatta + visarga \R{\1त॒ः}\\
taḥ̱ ta + visarga + anudatta \B{\1तः॒} \\[\medskipamount]
ShreeDevi
भजन - कीर्तन - आरती @ http://bhajans.ramparivar.com
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 7:44 PM, David M. Jones d...@dmj.ams.org wrote:
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,
David.
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 dotted circle
(U+25CC).
===
On a lark, I've been experimenting with typesetting Vedic Sanskrit,
specifically verses from the Ṛg-Veda, using the Murty Hindi font from
Tiro Typeworks. So far, XeTeX works beautifully, with two exceptions
involving the Vedic udatta and anudatta accent marks:
a) They don't attach properly to the Devanagari digits 1 and 3, and
b) They don't combine properly with the candrabindu, anusvara, and
visarga signs.
luaTeX does render these correctly, so it doesn't appear to be a
problem with the font itself.
I've included a zip file with a test file and sample output from
luaTeX and XeTeX.
Is this a bug, or am I missing something obvious?
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Incorrect rendering of Vedic Sanskrit accents
Please see http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode7.0.0/ch12.pdf
Page 443 and 444
Rule R10
Modifier Mark Rules.
In addition to vowel signs, three other types of combining marks may be
applied to a component of an orthographic syllable or to the syllable as a
whole: nukta, bindus, and svaras.
R10
Other modifying marks, in particular bindus and svaras, apply to the
orthographic syllable as a whole and should follow (in the memory
representation) all other characters that constitute the syllable.* The
bindus should follow any vowel signs, and the svaras should come last.*
As per the above, \V{Violet} marks a semantically invalid reordering of
the Unicode characters that happens to produce acceptable output. is
actually the correct ordering of unicode characters:
ta̍ṃ ta + udatta + anusvara \R{\1त॑ं}\\
taṃ̍ ta + anusvara + udatta \V{\1तं॑} \\
ta̱ṃ ta + anudatta + anusvara \R{\1त॒ं}\\
taṃ̱ ta + anusvara + anudatta \V{\1तं॒} \\[\medskipamount]
ta̍m̐ ta + udatta + candrabindu \R{\1त॑ँ}\\
tam̐̍ ta + candrabindu + udatta \V{\1तँ॑} \\
ta̱m̐ ta + anudatta + candrabindu \R{\1त॒ँ}\\
tam̱̐ ta + candrabindu + anudatta \V{\1तँ॒} \\[\medskipamount]
ta̍ḥ ta + udatta + visarga \R{\1त॑ः}\\
taḥ̍ ta + visarga + udatta \B{\1तः॑} \\
ta̱ḥ ta + anudatta + visarga \R{\1त॒ः}\\
taḥ̱ ta + visarga + anudatta \B{\1तः॒} \\[\medskipamount]
ShreeDevi
भजन - कीर्तन - आरती @ http://bhajans.ramparivar.com
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 7:44 PM, David M. Jones d...@dmj.ams.org wrote:
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,
David.
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 dotted circle
(U+25CC).
===
On a lark, I've been experimenting with typesetting Vedic Sanskrit,
specifically verses from the Ṛg-Veda, using the Murty Hindi font from
Tiro Typeworks. So far, XeTeX works beautifully, with two exceptions
involving the Vedic udatta and anudatta accent marks:
a) They don't attach properly to the Devanagari digits 1 and 3, and
b) They don't combine properly with the candrabindu, anusvara, and
visarga signs.
luaTeX does render these correctly, so it doesn't appear to be a
problem with the font itself.
I've included a zip file with a test file and sample output from
luaTeX and XeTeX.
Is this a bug, or am I missing something obvious?
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Incorrect rendering of Vedic Sanskrit accents
Atta boy! You tell 'em! Take THAT! SGM On May 22, 2015, at 4:37 PM, David M. Jones d...@dmj.ams.org wrote: Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 17:18:34 +0200 From: Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com 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 examples correctly would seem to rule that out. But no, switching fonts doesn't change the basic behaviour. David. I do not know Snaskrit, I am not able to judge whether the positions of Vedic accents are correct or not. Could you try the same sample with other Devanagari fonts and see what happends? Zdeněk Wagner http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/ http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz 2015-05-22 16:14 GMT+02:00 David M. Jones d...@dmj.ams.org: 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, David. 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 dotted circle (U+25CC). === On a lark, I've been experimenting with typesetting Vedic Sanskrit, specifically verses from the Ṛg-Veda, using the Murty Hindi font from Tiro Typeworks. So far, XeTeX works beautifully, with two exceptions involving the Vedic udatta and anudatta accent marks: a) They don't attach properly to the Devanagari digits 1 and 3, and b) They don't combine properly with the candrabindu, anusvara, and visarga signs. luaTeX does render these correctly, so it doesn't appear to be a problem with the font itself. I've included a zip file with a test file and sample output from luaTeX and XeTeX. Is this a bug, or am I missing something obvious? -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Incorrect rendering of Vedic Sanskrit accents
Alas, no. SGM On May 22, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Arthur Reutenauer arthur.reutena...@normalesup.org 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 -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Incorrect rendering of Vedic Sanskrit accents
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 17:18:34 +0200 From: Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com 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 examples correctly would seem to rule that out. But no, switching fonts doesn't change the basic behaviour. David. I do not know Snaskrit, I am not able to judge whether the positions of Vedic accents are correct or not. Could you try the same sample with other Devanagari fonts and see what happends? Zdeněk Wagner http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/ http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz 2015-05-22 16:14 GMT+02:00 David M. Jones d...@dmj.ams.org: 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, David. 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 dotted circle (U+25CC). === On a lark, I've been experimenting with typesetting Vedic Sanskrit, specifically verses from the Ṛg-Veda, using the Murty Hindi font from Tiro Typeworks. So far, XeTeX works beautifully, with two exceptions involving the Vedic udatta and anudatta accent marks: a) They don't attach properly to the Devanagari digits 1 and 3, and b) They don't combine properly with the candrabindu, anusvara, and visarga signs. luaTeX does render these correctly, so it doesn't appear to be a problem with the font itself. I've included a zip file with a test file and sample output from luaTeX and XeTeX. Is this a bug, or am I missing something obvious? -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Incorrect rendering of Vedic Sanskrit accents
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
Re: [XeTeX] Incorrect rendering of Vedic Sanskrit accents
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 automatically inserted (which I wouldn't like) or with an explicit U+25CC is the correct way to show a combining character in such a case, since it shows clearly where the combining mark would be in relation to the base character. You can always add a footnote to the effect that ◌ is conventionally used in place of a base character when discussing a combining mark without reference to a base character. Even if you want the mark to 'hang in the air' a combining mark needs something with width to 'hang' it on even in that case, and a nonbreaking space would seem to be the natural choice. If you (likely) need finer control over spacing one or more of the characters in the U+2000...U+200A range may serve, but remember that the visual effect may be font dependent. FWIW I checked some lead-printed Sanskrit grammars and dictionaries and they all use some base character (क or त in all cases) when discussing combining marks; there simply weren't any type for marks without a base character. Compared to that the dotted circle is a huge advance! Especially in a table it makes the difference between superscript, subscript and superimposed marks immediately clear. Alas U+25CC seldom is equipped with the anchors necessary to display marks correctly in relation to it, if there is a glyph for it at all. Often you need to use another font and adjust the size of the dotted circle itself. -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Incorrect rendering of Vedic Sanskrit accents
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 22:52:24 +0200 From: Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com 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/other.htm Based purely on the text, the situation is still a bit murky, though. Most seriously, the Indic specification is based on Unicode 3.1 and if everything in that section is meant to be normative, it's badly out-of-date with respect to more recent versions of Unicode. For one thing, it recommends attaching standalone combining marks to a space, but Unicode now recommends U+00A0 NO-BREAK SPACE for that purpose. More to the point, the Indic specification says Uniscribe displays these marks using the fallback rendering mechanism defined in the Unicode Standard (section 5.12, 'Rendering Non-Spacing Marks' of the Unicode Standard 3.1), i.e. positioned on a dotted circle. 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. Second, that is no longer what Unicode recommends as the default fallback rendering in this situation: In a degenerate case, a nonspacing mark occurs as the first character in the text or is separated from its base character by a line separator, paragraph separator, or other format character that causes a positional separation. This result is called a defective combining character sequence (see Section 3.6, Combination). Defective combining character sequences should be rendered as if they had a no-break space as a base character. (See Section 7.9, Combining Marks.) http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode7.0.0/UnicodeStandard-7.0.pdf, page 221. (This wording goes back at least as far as Unicode 5.0, where it occurs at the bottom of page 173. Alas, I no longer have a copy of Unicode 3.0 at home, so I can't check the exact working used in it.) On the other hand, as enjoyable as it is to play language lawyer with the Unicode specification, I'm happy to concede the point that I should just precede isolated characters by U+00A0 and everything will be ok. I'm much more vexed by the malfunctioning Vedic accents. I live in hope that that can be fixed so I don't have to throw away my TECkit transliteration engine and start anew with luaTeX. Cheers, David. -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Incorrect rendering of Vedic Sanskrit accents
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. Please don't make assumptions on what is and isn't a priority based on who sponsored development years ago. There is no plan or agenda on font and script support, much less on this particular issue, that should be considered only on its merits. And there are for sure bugs to be fixed in many areas, needless to say, in XeTeX and fonts and other programs and utilities. But that shouldn't encourage idle speculations. Best, Arthur -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Incorrect rendering of Vedic Sanskrit accents
2015-05-22 21:14 GMT+02:00 David M. Jones d...@dmj.ams.org: 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 devos.bo...@gmail.com Reply-To: XeTeX (Unicode-based TeX) discussion. xetex@tug.org 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 characters in isolation without adding a prothetic dotted circle (U+25CC). I was waiting for someone who knows more about this than I do to answer, but I'll display my ignorance. Afaik that's not a bug, that's the way combining characters are *supposed* to render when they don't have any character to combine This is, I think, debatable, as shown by the fact that XeTeX does *not* add the dotted circle for any of the combining diacritical in the 0300 block, and LuaTeX doesn't add them for the Devanagari marks. So at the very least, this is a matter of consistency. The requirement of the Indic specification is to display the dotted circle if the mark cannot be combined. HarfBuzz implements correctly the specification and XeTeX makes use of HarfBuzz. Luatex breaks the specification but the bug is not considered as serious as the fix is needed. It is possible that it will remain in LuaTeX forever, although, strictly speaking, i is a bug. with. There's a way to prevent that; I _think_ it's to precede the combining character by a non-breaking space (U+00A0). But I haven't tried that. You're correct: that is the suggested Unicode coding and it does in fact work. (I thought I tried it before and it didn't work, but either I'm misremembering or it was before I upgraded to the latest XeTeX.) 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 a dotted circle show up is not very helpful. 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. But I admit this is an edge case, which is probabably why I decided against drawing attention to it in my original sourceforge bug report. I wish I had stuck to my earlier resolve. Cheers, David. Bobby -- Bobby de Vos /devos.bo...@gmail.com/ Zdeněk Wagner http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/ http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Incorrect rendering of Vedic Sanskrit accents
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 you try the same sample with other Devanagari fonts and see what happends? Zdeněk Wagner http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/ http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz 2015-05-22 16:14 GMT+02:00 David M. Jones d...@dmj.ams.org: 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, David. 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 dotted circle (U+25CC). === On a lark, I've been experimenting with typesetting Vedic Sanskrit, specifically verses from the Ṛg-Veda, using the Murty Hindi font from Tiro Typeworks. So far, XeTeX works beautifully, with two exceptions involving the Vedic udatta and anudatta accent marks: a) They don't attach properly to the Devanagari digits 1 and 3, and b) They don't combine properly with the candrabindu, anusvara, and visarga signs. luaTeX does render these correctly, so it doesn't appear to be a problem with the font itself. I've included a zip file with a test file and sample output from luaTeX and XeTeX. Is this a bug, or am I missing something obvious? -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Incorrect rendering of Vedic Sanskrit accents
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 dotted circle (U+25CC). I was waiting for someone who knows more about this than I do to answer, but I'll display my ignorance. Afaik that's not a bug, that's the way combining characters are *supposed* to render when they don't have any character to combine with. There's a way to prevent that; I _think_ it's to precede the combining character by a non-breaking space (U+00A0). But I haven't tried that. Mike Maxwell University of Maryland -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Incorrect rendering of Vedic Sanskrit accents
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 a dotted circle show up is not very helpful. Yes, but most font providers don't have such minority languages in mind. (SIL would be an exception.) That said, I've worked with such minority languages (including ones that are just in the process of defining their writing systems), and I don't recall a case where it was necessary to use a combining character without a base character. 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. That's of course not the same as saying it's never necessary, and the OP's need to show it in tables is one valid (IMO) use case. If it can be done with the method I mentioned, then that's probably good enough, at least for that use case. Mike Maxwell -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Incorrect rendering of Vedic Sanskrit accents
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 characters in isolation without adding a prothetic dotted circle (U+25CC). I was waiting for someone who knows more about this than I do to answer, but I'll display my ignorance. Afaik that's not a bug, that's the way combining characters are *supposed* to render when they don't have any character to combine with. There's a way to prevent that; I _think_ it's to precede the combining character by a non-breaking space (U+00A0). But I haven't tried that. 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 a dotted circle show up is not very helpful. Bobby -- Bobby de Vos /devos.bo...@gmail.com/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Incorrect rendering of Vedic Sanskrit accents
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 devos.bo...@gmail.com Reply-To: XeTeX (Unicode-based TeX) discussion. xetex@tug.org 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 characters in isolation without adding a prothetic dotted circle (U+25CC). I was waiting for someone who knows more about this than I do to answer, but I'll display my ignorance. Afaik that's not a bug, that's the way combining characters are *supposed* to render when they don't have any character to combine This is, I think, debatable, as shown by the fact that XeTeX does *not* add the dotted circle for any of the combining diacritical in the 0300 block, and LuaTeX doesn't add them for the Devanagari marks. So at the very least, this is a matter of consistency. with. There's a way to prevent that; I _think_ it's to precede the combining character by a non-breaking space (U+00A0). But I haven't tried that. You're correct: that is the suggested Unicode coding and it does in fact work. (I thought I tried it before and it didn't work, but either I'm misremembering or it was before I upgraded to the latest XeTeX.) 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 a dotted circle show up is not very helpful. 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. But I admit this is an edge case, which is probabably why I decided against drawing attention to it in my original sourceforge bug report. I wish I had stuck to my earlier resolve. Cheers, David. Bobby -- Bobby de Vos /devos.bo...@gmail.com/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
