[XeTeX] "Options for all fonts" : colo[u]r, and the transparency byte

[Tobias Schoel]

Let's see, if I understood you and Johnathan correctly:
1. TikZ does transparency with xetex on all systems using \special{}s.
2. XeTeX passes all \special{}s without touching it (\special{} are 
handled by the driver, that is xdvipmx / xdv2pdf.).
3. xdvipmx and xdv2pdf convert TikZ's \special{}s into pdf transparency 
on all systems.
4. fontspec uses other means to state the colour of fonts, including 
transparent fonts.
5. the way fontspec states transparency will be converted to pdf 
transparency by xdv2pdf but not by xdvipmx.

If anything is wrong, correct me.

If the above is correct, could fontspec do it the TikZ-Way? Or could the 
following code be made work properly:

\newcommand{\texttransparent}[3]{\tikz[baseline]{\node[anchor=base,#1,opacity=#2] 
at (0,0) {#3};}} %#1=Colour, #2=Opacity, #3=Text

  bye

Toscho

Am 05.06.2011 22:09, schrieb Peter Dyballa:
>
> Am 05.06.2011 um 21:54 schrieb Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd):
>
>> So why doesn't it ?!
>
> Phil,
>
> it does! It passes all \special{}s without touching them into the output
> file. Whether you're using the xetex or the xelatex command plays no
> role: you have only access to the xetex engine's transparency support
> which is Mac OS X service oriented. This Mac OS X service transforms the
> \special{}s into PDF code.
>
> The XeTeX engine needs to catch up with developments in PDF – or vanish.
> Could be LuaTeX and ConXeTeXt have a future.
>
> --
> Greetings
>
> Pete
>
> Don't just do something, sit there.
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex