[XeTeX] misplaced accents in printout only?

[Zdenek Wagner]

Hi Dominik,

can you try the same text with another font? I remember a similar problem
with csfonts a few years ago. For explanation, if you have to dra "a" glyph
in the font, you start by moving from the reference point to the beginning
of the outline. Now you want to draw "á". You have "a" in the font, you
have the acute accent. A naive idea is to draw the accent first, then move
back to the reference point and then draw "a". Doing this you have two move
operations in a sequence, one from the end of the accent outline to the
reference font, another from the reference point to the beginning of the
"a" outline. this is not allowed. Some rasterizes can cope with it and the
result looks as expected, some rasterizers do funny things (they usually
delete one of the moves. It might be your case, so probably the font
contains a sequence of two moves for the dotbelow accent.

Zdeněk Wagner
http://ttsm.icpf.cas.cz/team/wagner.shtml
http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz

2016-01-19 7:09 GMT+01:00 Arthur Reutenauer <
arthur.reutenauer at normalesup.org>:

>   Answering for Dominik, as that is easy to check by inspecting the PDF
> file (the original one, obviously):
>
> > I assume you have already considered: are the fonts embedded in the PDF?
>
>   Yes.
>
> > Did he enter the characters as precomposed combinations or by using
> > combining marks?  First option more likely, I imagine.
>
>   Irrelevant, but you're right, it's the first option.
>
> > This is a real shot in the dark, but here goes:
> > Is it possible that, at some point in the process, the precomposed
> > characters were decomposed and then put back together in a way that
> affected
> > the output?
>
>   Possible in general, but that's not what happened here.  The
> problematic characters are coded in the PDF as single glyphs.
>
>         Best,
>
>                 Arthur
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
>   http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20160119/cbfe3e3d/attachment.html>