On 9/1/10 2:03 PM, Alexander Schultheiß wrote:
Hey David,
This is just not true. The example I sent you works correctly on my
machine; I deliberately included y-macron-acute which does not exist in
precomposed form in Unicode.
I don't think they work correctly, in the sense that they are
positioned according to the anchor points. I've attached a pdf with
the results of the little investigation I did. For example, I've tried
various methods to get a m+macron+acute with dotbelow (starting from
line 2.1). It confirms my suspicion that xelatex doesn't care about
anchor points in complex glyphs. It "fakes" them.
Something odd is going on here, but I don't think it has to do with
anchor marks. Junicode actually has a precomposed character m + macron +
acute + dot below. It's not a Unicode character, but rather is
unencoded. (I can't remember why it's there: maybe a user asked for it
at some point.) It should be getting substituted (via ccmp, the earliest
lookup performed) whenever the renderer sees the sequence m + U0323 +
U0304 + U0301 or m + U0304 + U0301 + U0323. I think that ICU/XeTeX is
probably doing the right thing at this point. But Junicode's precomposed
character is made of references instead of outlines, and sometimes
ICU/XeTeX (not sure who's doing the rendering at this point) gets
confused about glyphs composed of references.
Alexander, if you don't mind my sending you a big file off-list, I'd
like to see if a change in the Junicode font will fix the problem.
Peter
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
