[XeTeX] \emph and Doulos SIL

[Kenneth Reid Beesley]

Thanks to Yves for the trick.  It works perfectly for me.

As for Mike Maxwell's question (why not use Charis everywhere?)
it's just because I think that Doulos looks better than Charis in any  
extended
text.

Ken



On 31 Oct 2007, at 14:13, xetex-request at tug.org wrote:

> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:07:48 -0400 (EDT)
> From: maxwell at umiacs.umd.edu
<snip>
>
> Is there any reason not to use Charis everywhere, i.e. instead of  
> Doulos?
>
>    Mike Maxwell
>    CASL/ U MD
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:34:30 +0100
> From: Yves Codet <ycodet at club-internet.fr>
> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] fontspec and \emph
> To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms <xetex at tug.org>
> Message-ID: <BEEE2300-EB11-413C-90B9-72806957CA24 at club-internet.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hello.
>
> Le 31 oct. 07 ? 17:12, Kenneth Reid Beesley a ?crit :
>
>>
>> If I use fontspec
>>
>> \usepackage{fontspec}
>>
>> and specify
>>
>> \setromanfont[Mapping=tex-text]{Doulos SIL}
>>
>> the problem is that Doulos SIL contains only roman glyphs
>> and \emph{foo} does not come out in italic.  Is there an
>> easy way with fontspec to use Doulos SIL in this way but
>> have it slip into another font, e.g. Charis SIL, for rendering
>> text inside \emph{}?
>
> Unless I missed something the following command should do what you  
> want:
>
> \setromanfont[Mapping=tex-text,ItalicFont={Charis SIL}]{Doulos SIL}
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Yves
>
>