On 22.08.08, Rich Shepard wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
The problem is that the font you're using does not provide the appropriate
glyph (for SM). Thus textcomp bails out.
That occurred to me, but I neglected to ask. I'm surprised that the
Palatino fonts don't
On 22.08.08, Rich Shepard wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
The problem is that the font you're using does not provide the appropriate
glyph (for SM). Thus textcomp bails out.
That occurred to me, but I neglected to ask. I'm surprised that the
Palatino fonts don't
On 22.08.08, Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>> The problem is that the font you're using does not provide the appropriate
>> glyph (for SM). Thus textcomp bails out.
> That occurred to me, but I neglected to ask. I'm surprised that the
> Palatino fonts
Rich Shepard wrote:
No, the workaround still works. I would, however, like to learn why symbol
cannot be produced by the package in which it's defined.
The problem is that the font you're using does not provide the appropriate
glyph (for SM). Thus textcomp bails out.
Consult the LaTeX
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
The problem is that the font you're using does not provide the appropriate
glyph (for SM). Thus textcomp bails out.
Jürgen,
That occurred to me, but I neglected to ask. I'm surprised that the
Palatino fonts don't contain that glyph since this
Rich Shepard wrote:
No, the workaround still works. I would, however, like to learn why symbol
cannot be produced by the package in which it's defined.
The problem is that the font you're using does not provide the appropriate
glyph (for SM). Thus textcomp bails out.
Consult the LaTeX
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
The problem is that the font you're using does not provide the appropriate
glyph (for SM). Thus textcomp bails out.
Jürgen,
That occurred to me, but I neglected to ask. I'm surprised that the
Palatino fonts don't contain that glyph since this
Rich Shepard wrote:
> No, the workaround still works. I would, however, like to learn why symbol
> cannot be produced by the package in which it's defined.
The problem is that the font you're using does not provide the appropriate
glyph (for SM). Thus textcomp bails out.
Consult the LaTeX
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
The problem is that the font you're using does not provide the appropriate
glyph (for SM). Thus textcomp bails out.
Jürgen,
That occurred to me, but I neglected to ask. I'm surprised that the
Palatino fonts don't contain that glyph since this
I had similar problems with \textregistered - plenty issues with that... but
finally it starts working. It works when put in ERT.
2008/8/21 Paul A. Rubin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rich Shepard wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Rich Shepard wrote:
I cannot use \textservicemark without compile errors
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
I can't translate the [EMAIL PROTECTED]@symbol2 thing, but we had a discussion
about the vagaries of \textservicemark back in February
(http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-users@lists.lyx.org/msg62336.html). Does
this imply that the workaround you found
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Manveru wrote:
I had similar problems with \textregistered - plenty issues with that... but
finally it starts working. It works when put in ERT.
There is no other way to enter these symbols. I've no problems with
registered or trademark, only with servicemark.
Rich
--
On 21.08.08, Rich Shepard wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
No, the workaround still works. I would, however, like to learn why symbol
cannot be produced by the package in which it's defined. There should be a
reason known by some LaTeX guru, and I'd like to expand my
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, G. Milde wrote:
Just a silly guess: did you check the versions of the package and the
documentation?
Yes. I posted that in my follow-up message.
Rich
--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. | IntegrityCredibility
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.
I had similar problems with \textregistered - plenty issues with that... but
finally it starts working. It works when put in ERT.
2008/8/21 Paul A. Rubin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rich Shepard wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Rich Shepard wrote:
I cannot use \textservicemark without compile errors
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
I can't translate the [EMAIL PROTECTED]@symbol2 thing, but we had a discussion
about the vagaries of \textservicemark back in February
(http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-users@lists.lyx.org/msg62336.html). Does
this imply that the workaround you found
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Manveru wrote:
I had similar problems with \textregistered - plenty issues with that... but
finally it starts working. It works when put in ERT.
There is no other way to enter these symbols. I've no problems with
registered or trademark, only with servicemark.
Rich
--
On 21.08.08, Rich Shepard wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
No, the workaround still works. I would, however, like to learn why symbol
cannot be produced by the package in which it's defined. There should be a
reason known by some LaTeX guru, and I'd like to expand my
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, G. Milde wrote:
Just a silly guess: did you check the versions of the package and the
documentation?
Yes. I posted that in my follow-up message.
Rich
--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. | IntegrityCredibility
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.
I had similar problems with \textregistered - plenty issues with that... but
finally it starts working. It works when put in ERT.
2008/8/21 Paul A. Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Rich Shepard wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Rich Shepard wrote:
>>
>> I cannot use \textservicemark without compile
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
I can't translate the [EMAIL PROTECTED]@symbol2 thing, but we had a discussion
about the vagaries of \textservicemark back in February
(http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-users@lists.lyx.org/msg62336.html). Does
this imply that the workaround you found
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Manveru wrote:
I had similar problems with \textregistered - plenty issues with that... but
finally it starts working. It works when put in ERT.
There is no other way to enter these symbols. I've no problems with
registered or trademark, only with servicemark.
Rich
--
On 21.08.08, Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
> No, the workaround still works. I would, however, like to learn why symbol
> cannot be produced by the package in which it's defined. There should be a
> reason known by some LaTeX guru, and I'd like to expand my
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, G. Milde wrote:
Just a silly guess: did you check the versions of the package and the
documentation?
Yes. I posted that in my follow-up message.
Rich
--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. | IntegrityCredibility
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.
I cannot use \textservicemark without compile errors when using pdflatex.
However, I can use \texttrademark without a burp. According to my symbols
list, the latter has a LaTeX2e kludge while the former does not. The former
requires textcomp. Is that a package?
There is a legal difference
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Rich Shepard wrote:
I cannot use \textservicemark without compile errors when using pdflatex.
However, I can use \texttrademark without a burp. According to my symbols
list, the latter has a LaTeX2e kludge while the former does not. The former
requires textcomp. Is that a
Rich Shepard wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Rich Shepard wrote:
I cannot use \textservicemark without compile errors when using
pdflatex.
However, I can use \texttrademark without a burp. According to my symbols
list, the latter has a LaTeX2e kludge while the former does not. The
former
I cannot use \textservicemark without compile errors when using pdflatex.
However, I can use \texttrademark without a burp. According to my symbols
list, the latter has a LaTeX2e kludge while the former does not. The former
requires textcomp. Is that a package?
There is a legal difference
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Rich Shepard wrote:
I cannot use \textservicemark without compile errors when using pdflatex.
However, I can use \texttrademark without a burp. According to my symbols
list, the latter has a LaTeX2e kludge while the former does not. The former
requires textcomp. Is that a
Rich Shepard wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Rich Shepard wrote:
I cannot use \textservicemark without compile errors when using
pdflatex.
However, I can use \texttrademark without a burp. According to my symbols
list, the latter has a LaTeX2e kludge while the former does not. The
former
I cannot use \textservicemark without compile errors when using pdflatex.
However, I can use \texttrademark without a burp. According to my symbols
list, the latter has a LaTeX2e kludge while the former does not. The former
requires textcomp. Is that a package?
There is a legal difference
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Rich Shepard wrote:
I cannot use \textservicemark without compile errors when using pdflatex.
However, I can use \texttrademark without a burp. According to my symbols
list, the latter has a LaTeX2e kludge while the former does not. The former
requires textcomp. Is that a
Rich Shepard wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Rich Shepard wrote:
I cannot use \textservicemark without compile errors when using
pdflatex.
However, I can use \texttrademark without a burp. According to my symbols
list, the latter has a LaTeX2e kludge while the former does not. The
former
33 matches
Mail list logo
