7

I was trying to find a font which has obsolete jamo and the right combining behaviour. Yesterday I found out about Noto Sans, which seems to have both of these. However, when I use it in XeTeX, I get some seemingly-arbitrary hanja (or blank spaces) instead of the expected characters.

(I’m guessing the composing behaviour will fix itself when the right characters are selected. And yes, I know that Code2000 is working perfectly in this example, but unfortunately it is the ugliest font in the world. :p)

MWE:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{fontspec}

% 1. precomposed: U+BB47
% 2. separate jamo: U+1106, U+116E, U+11BA
% 3. obsolete [separate jamo]: U+113B, U+119F, U+11EB
\newcommand\test[1]{#1 & {\fontspec{#1}{뭇; 뭇; ᄻᆟᇫ}} \\}

\begin{document}

\begin{tabular}{rl}
\test{Arial Unicode MS}
\test{Batang}
\test{Code2000}
\test{Gulim}
\test{GungSeo}
\test{HeadLineA}
\test{Nanum Brush Script}
\test{Nanum Myeongjo}
\test{Nanum Pen Script}
\test{Noto Sans Korean}
\test{PCMyungjo}
\test{PilGi}
\test{Adobe Gothic Std}
\test{Adobe Myungjo Std}
\test{Apple SD Gothic Neo}
\test{AppleGothic}
\test{AppleMyungjo}
\end{tabular}

\end{document}

http://cl.ly/WcUO/Screen%20Shot%202014-07-17%20at%2013.08.08.PNG

1

3 Answers 3

4

Noto Sans Korean or original Source Han Sans should be OK. However, you should use a latest (unreleased) version of xdvipdfmx patched by Jiang Jiang not long ago.

Realted: XeTeX: CID-keyed font support?

% !TEX program = XeLaTeX
% !TEX encoding = UTF-8
\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{fontspec}

\setmainfont{NotoSansKR-Regular.otf}
% \setmainfont{SourceHanSansK-Regular.otf}

\begin{document}

뭇; 뭇; ᄻᆟᇫ

\end{document}

enter image description here

Precompiled xdvipdfmx:

1
  • The patched version works great. Thankyou! Aug 19, 2014 at 19:43
5

On Windows 8, Malgun Gothic supports combining Hangul Jamo ("Old Hangul" hereinafter). On Mac which you seem to be using, however, there's no font bundled that supports Old Hangul.

Noto Sans or Source Han Sans, actually exactly same fonts with different names, cannot be used on XeTeX for the time being, as discussed in the thread linked at Khaled's comment above.

However, there is another font family supporting Old Hangul with good quality: Hamchorom LVT fonts. They have no problem with current XeTeX or LuaTeX as they are TrueType fonts, and include serif and sans-serif styles with regular and bold series respectively.

Except for these fonts I mentioned, Malgun Gothic, Noto Sans, Source Han Sans, and Hamchorom LVT, any other fonts are not suitable for professional typesetting of Old Hangul at least until this day.

EDIT: Hamchorom LVT fonts are derived from Hamchorom fonts of which Hancom Inc. is the copyright holder. As per the license, the fonts cannot be redistributed or modified for commercial purpose without explicit permission from the copyright holder. So, for instance, you cannot sell your new smart pad with Hamchorom fonts (or LVT variants) embedded.

0
4

I just ran into the same issue with the Noto Sans Traditional Chinese font (except with plain xetex) and google brought me here. The next thing I tried was luatex (with luaotfload) which works fine. So this appears to be a bug in xetex.

EDIT: Per Khaled's suggestion above, this is an issue with CID keyed fonts. I have no idea what they are, but installing fontforge (with cidmaps, that is fontforge-extras in ubuntu) and then doing CID->Flatten to convert to a non-keyed font seems to work around the problem.

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .