Re: showfont with xetex (syntax changed?)

["Mojca Miklavec" <mojca.miklavec.lists@gmail.com>]

On Dec 6, 2007 2:48 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
> Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
> > But generally, LuaTeX is much more suitable for such previews (only
> > that there might be no "newshowfont" available yet - writing one is
> > doable if you know what you're interested in).
> >
> > My two cents: ConTeXt currenty uses
> >     smcp=yes,script=latn,onum=yes,liga=yes...
> > while fontspec uses either
> >     Letters=SmallCaps
> >     Script=Latin
> >     Numbers=OldStyle
> >     Ligatures=Common
> > or the same raw names as above. I would prefer the "human-readable"
> > names as in fontspec, but ... well, the font calling mechanisms really
> > need to improve in my opinion.
>
> > What fontspec achieves in one line like (copying from XeTeX list):
> >     \setmainfont[Script=Devanagari]{Sanskrit 2003}
> > needs dozens of lines in ConTeXt (definefontfeature, define
> > typescripts in two steps, ... brrrr)
> >
> > So in case that some more features in XeTeX/LuaTeX change, do not be
> > surprised too much ...
>
> keep in mind that xetex and mkiv support will not be the same in all
> those aspects;

Well, to be honest, I wanted to ask you to do something similar to
what you did with enco-utf :) once you finish the mkiv interface.
That is, to auto-generate the list of feature mappings, so that the
interface may remain the same in XeTeX as it is in LuaTeX, like
    \defineotflanguagesynonym[slovenian][slv]
    \defineotfscriptsynonym[latin][latn]
then, language=dutch can switch on the ij ligature in LM in XeTeX as well :)

(At least someone needs to fight for the rights of XeTeX users :) :) :) :)

> i more or less expect users to use one or the other
> engine and then become familiar with its specific interfaces

That's true when people use LaTeX :)
That fame of ConTeXt (write once, use everywhere) should not be
dropped at once :(

> anyhow, a next version of mkiv will support more verbose options,
>
> script=slovenian
> smallcaps=true

Great :)

> basically anything in the script, language and feature hashes
> (lowercased and de-spaced when compared)

What about
    ['fin2'] = 'Terminal Forms #2',
    ['fin3'] = 'Terminal Forms #3',
    ['ccmp'] = 'Glyph Composition/Decomposition',
? :) :) :)

(Not to be considered a serious question of course :)

> something numbers=oldstyle could be supported but i see no real reason
> for it since then we end up in endless lists of possibilities (given all
> kind of combinations)

Some examples:
    numbers=monospaced (+tnum)
    numbers=proportional (+pnum)
    numbers=lowercase/oldstyle (+onum)
    numbers=uppercase/lining (+lnum)
    numbers=[no]slashedzero (+zero)

    letters=normal
    letters=uppercase (+case)
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________