On 25-7-2012 09:41, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 25-7-2012 04:33, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Basically I'm trying to move away from wordprocessors, and while I'm not looking for meaningless effects like "walking ants" (from MS Word) to be provided by TeX macro packages, faux smallcaps (and oblique and bold) is not an unreasonable thing to expect IMO. Not everyone is a typographer to produce the appropriate fine-typography glyphs for their favourite font to cater to a particular style. Why should the system impose "super-duper" typography on users when they are willing to settle for less?
Sure, but one problem with a mkii fake approach is that it is fragile when something else than 8 bit characters shows up in the content stream.
Is that also true for XeTeX? (What is an 8-bit character when talking of XeTeX?)
On the one hand less, as a token can be an utf character, but fo rother bits and pieces of the input it is still tricky. Given the earlier posted code: \smallcaps{àáâãäå Watch out for returns.} That works, but the next doesn't: \smallcaps{àáâãäå Watch out for \TEX\ returns.} So, a parser would have to deal with things like this: \TEX {\bold test} \hbox{test} There are some token processors in mkii that deal with some of these aspects.
But it lacks Indic scripts, so it's not an option for him, at least not yet.
Indic scripts will be supported in mkiv some day soon (at the ntg meeting there has been a presentation about devanagari etc using the context font machinery and that will be integrated once it's stable). Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------