On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 01:05:28PM +0545, Leo Brouwer wrote: > I've run Richard's sample (with devamt.ttf, the IBM version of Devanagari > MT---apparently not an exact equivalent, as it doesn't render "trya" > correctly), and it appears to me that it's not the fonts, but the lack > of* *Script=Devanagari > in the font options that's causing the difference. Using velthuis-sanskrit > mapping *without *Script=Devanagari displays visarga & dependent vowels > without the circle for *all *fonts I've tried. It also doesn't form > conjuncts correctly, however. Strangely enough, leaving out the script > option doesn't seem to make a difference when using Romdev mapping, or when > inputting Devanagari directly.
Good catch -- it completely slipped my mind that I'd used Script=Devanagari for only one of the two fonts in my original message. (I'd cut and paste the text from somewhere else.) To me, it looks like the effects of Script=Devanagari are at least partly font-dependent. With Sanskrit 2003, I need to have the Script setting present, or it doesn't bother with conjuncts; it just sticks viramas everywhere. Precisely the *opposite* is true with Devanagari MT. I've attached source (UTF-8) and output, for completeness's sake. As you can see, I was also curious if Mapping=velthuis-sanskrit made any different. Conclusion: Not with these fonts, at least. Richard
devanagari-test.tex
Description: TeX document
devanagari-test.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
-------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
