Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> I have no time to look deep into it but does anybody know what is the
> definition of \- if these packages is used? Isn't is possible that it is
> a fragile macro? I remember one thing from Phil Taylor's tutorial held
> on EuroTeX'92 in Prague. He said that the most
On 8 October 2015 at 09:25, Philip Taylor wrote:
>
>
> Zdenek Wagner wrote:
>
>> I have no time to look deep into it but does anybody know what is the
>> definition of \- if these packages is used? Isn't is possible that it is
>> a fragile macro? I remember one thing from
On 8 October 2015 at 09:50, Philip Taylor wrote:
> Hmmm, completely stymied : not even this works ...
It wouldn't be expected to really, this was asked on stackexchange initially
and it looks almost certainly due to the interface between tex's hyphenation and
the font
David Carlisle wrote:
> It seems to be there just that the \nobreak is making the first part
> not be th elast word in the paragraph.
Oops, I had forgotten that I had added a \nobreak when investigating
this odd behaviour earlier; sorry, Peter ! Back to the drawing board ...
** Phil.
> Yes, it's very possible this is an engine bug. What would be most useful
> here, I think, would be a reduced (non-LaTeX!) > testcase demonstrating the
> underlying incorrect behavior at the (Xe)TeX primitive level. Any takers?
I'll see what I can do
David
Hmmm, completely stymied : not even this works ...
% !TeX Program=XeLaTeX
\documentclass[a4paper]{article}
\usepackage{fontspec}
\usepackage[para]{footmisc}
\begin{document}
\message {\meaning \discretionary}
\footnote{XX just a few normal words to fill up the line
up to my x x x
On 8/10/15 09:52, David Carlisle wrote:
On 8 October 2015 at 09:50, Philip Taylor wrote:
Hmmm, completely stymied : not even this works ...
It wouldn't be expected to really, this was asked on stackexchange initially
and it looks almost certainly due to the interface
David Carlisle wrote:
> Here is a plain tex example, not quite as minimal as I'd like but out
> of time for now.
>
> This hyphenates with pdftex but not xetex
But the following hyphenates identically in both. I do wonder whether
being the last word of the para. is implicated ...
Jonathan Kew wrote:
> Yes, it's very possible this is an engine bug. What would be most useful
> here, I think, would be a reduced (non-LaTeX!) test case demonstrating
> the underlying incorrect behaviour at the (Xe)TeX primitive level. Any
> takers?
Way beyond my abilities but I can
Here is a plain tex example, not quite as minimal as I'd like but out
of time for now.
This hyphenates with pdftex but not xetex
\nopagenumbers
\catcode`\@=11
\ifx\Umathchar\@undefined
\font\x=cmr12
\else
\font\x="[lmroman12-regular]:mapping=tex-text"
\fi
\x
\newbox\FN@tempboxa
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 01:01:37PM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> Here is a plain tex example, not quite as minimal as I'd like but out
> of time for now.
>
> This hyphenates with pdftex but not xetex
Many thanks David, that's really helpful.
Best,
Arthur
Here's a shorter example which hyphenates with cmr12 (in pdfTeX/XeTeX)
but not with the font copied from David's example: hyphenation is lost
when closing the hbox, as can be seen by adding the appropriate
\tracingonline=1\showboxbreadth=99 and \showlists just before the
closing brace.
I have no
On 8/10/15 16:29, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
Here's a shorter example which hyphenates with cmr12 (in pdfTeX/XeTeX)
but not with the font copied from David's example: hyphenation is lost
when closing the hbox, as can be seen by adding the appropriate
\tracingonline=1\showboxbreadth=99 and \showlists
The original questioner said he was doing a critical edition. If he's
using EDMAC or LEDMAC then perhaps I can note that EDMAC does some work to
avoid setting footnote text in "restricted horizontal mode". Restricted
horizontal mode does a number of annoying things to text, including (I
think)
On 10/8/15, David Carlisle wrote:
> On 8 October 2015 at 17:53, Dominik Wujastyk wrote:
>> The original questioner said he was doing a critical edition. If he's
>> using
>> EDMAC or LEDMAC then perhaps I can note that EDMAC does some work to
>> avoid
Oh, my bad. I was working from dim memory of the past. I wonder if LaTeX
changed its footnote handling somewhere along the line, or whether I'm just
wrong full stop. Not interesting in the present context.
Best,
Dominik
On 8 October 2015 at 12:12, David Carlisle wrote:
On 8 October 2015 at 17:53, Dominik Wujastyk wrote:
> The original questioner said he was doing a critical edition. If he's using
> EDMAC or LEDMAC then perhaps I can note that EDMAC does some work to avoid
> setting footnote text in "restricted horizontal mode". Restricted
17 matches
Mail list logo