On 17.12.2011 15:10, [email protected] wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011, Tobias Schoel wrote:
So we're back to the days, where one had to use escape sequences for quotation
marks (\glq,\grq,"',"`,…) as though unicode had not included u2019.
Even worse, because with OpenType some font designers might include
substitution rules which include white space at font level. So, as an author,
I have to bear in mind, that for one font I need to define \englishrightquote
as u202f+u2019, and for other for another font I need to define it simply as
It has always been the case that if you want an effect different from what
was designed into the font, you had to do extra work. Letterpress shops
used to have special tools for cutting and filing bits off of the metal
type sorts in order to do special positioning of glyphs. There are some
nice photos here:
http://blog.typoretum.co.uk/2009/04/01/cutting-in-letterpress-accents/
It shouldn't be surprising that if you want to use a font other than in
the way its designer intended, that requires some extra work and that that
extra work is different on a per-font basis.
Hmm, perhaps I was only thinking that u2019 and u0027 should be
different. I still don't get, why prime (u2032) and apostroph (u2019 as
is preferred to u0027) are different although right single quotation
mark and apostroph are equal.
Of course, one has to do own work, if the font designer hat another
point of view regarding his font. But if apostroph and right single
quotation mark were different, then font designers could create fonts,
in which quotation marks have some extra white space (for me they often
seem too close to the letters) and apostrophs have some less wite space
(for me, they often seem to stretch the letters in one word too far).
(Or if not font designers, than the creators of the typesetting engines
could insert some kerning (like with french spacing).)
bye
Toscho
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
