# Font mixup with Neo Euler and Fontspec

For my document I would like to use Linux Libertine as main font and Neo Euler as maths font. However, there seems to be some conflict with the code I am using. Here is a MWE and its output:

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{luatextra, amsmath}
\usepackage[math-style=ISO, bold-style=ISO]{unicode-math}

% Main fonts
\defaultfontfeatures{Ligatures=TeX, Scale=MatchLowercase}

\setmainfont[SmallCapsFont={LinLibertineCapitalsO}, SmallCapsFeatures={Letters=SmallCaps}, , Numbers=OldStyle]{Linux Libertine O}
\setmonofont{Ubuntu Mono}
\setmathfont{Neo Euler}

\begin{document}

\emph{ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPQRSTUVWXZY abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvxyz}
$$ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPQRSTUVWXZY abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvxyz$$
$ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPQRSTUVWXZY abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvxyz$
$$1234567890$$
1234567890
\begin{align}
ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPQRSTUVWXZY abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvxyz
\end{align}
$\mathbf{\hat{x}} \iiint \mathbf{\dot{A}}$

\end{document}


Note how there seems to be a mix-up between the two fonts. How can I make sure the correct fonts are selected?

-
I now realize that if I specify Neo Euler as my main font plainly by \setmainfont{Neo Euler} the commands \textit and \textbf do not have any effect. Thoughts? –  Ingo Apr 6 '12 at 16:23
because it has no bold or italic text fonts, text and math fonts are built and handled differently. –  Khaled Hosny Apr 6 '12 at 19:44

Neo Euler is upright by design and currently math italic slots are empty (now I think this was a bad decision, but no time to fix it now), so [math-style=ISO, bold-style=ISO] does not make much sense here and what you are seeing is the default Computer Modern math font, instead you should use [math-style=upright].
@tehingo, by design Euler is an upright italic (Hermann Zapf is to be blamed, I didn't design it :)), this is how things are and if you really want slanted italic, then Euler is not your best choice. –  Khaled Hosny Apr 7 '12 at 12:25
No blame to Mr Zapf, I'm sure he has his reasons ;-). Personally I prefer a different style, so I'll decide for something else :-). Thanks again anyway! –  Ingo Apr 7 '12 at 12:49