Q.: XP vs. Vista/7 for diacritically decorated T's

[tlvp]

For transliterated Sanskrit, I need a lower-case "t" with a dot beneath it,
Unicode character 1E6D (the upper-case (uc) variant is 1E6C).

Alas, the Insert > Symbol routine for Word 2000 under Win XP offers only
lower-case "t" with a cedilla beneath it, Unicode character 0163 (uc=0162).
Likewise the Win XP Character Map routine, charmap.exe .

What's worse, even the browsers I have on my Win XP system seem unable to
display correctly the entities Ṭ (for "Ṭ"), or ṭ (for "ṭ"),
while they display Ţ and ţ (Ţ and ţ, respectively) just fine.

I'd need the 1E6D character most urgently just in the font Times New Roman.

Q1: Should I just copy over into the XP system the TNR OTF font I find in
my Vista (or Win 7) system? Or will that make more problems than it solves?

Q2: (i) If instead I use Word 2007 on a Win7 system to insert the dotted t
characters "ṭ" where needed, in a document originally prepared in Word
2000, and make sure the Option to "Embed TrueType Fonts" is selected before
saving as a Word 2000 type document, will Word 2000 (on that XP system) see
that "ṭ"? And, if so,
(ii) will Adobe Distiller (from Acrobat Pro v. 4.05) on that XP system be
able to make a PDF successfully showing those "ṭ" instances upon distilling
the .PS file got by printing "to FILE" using our usual PS printer driver
(that for an HP-IIISi)?

TIA for all useful ideas. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[Peter T. Daniels]

I did not notice the malicious resetting of followups by "tlvp," so I
was puzzled by the non-appearance of my reply, and of any response it
may have generated.

Would someone at "comp.fonts" be so kind as to crosspost my message
and any discussion back here to where it originated?

Thank you.

[tlvp]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:29:55 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> I did not notice the malicious resetting of followups by "tlvp," so I
> was puzzled by the non-appearance of my reply, and of any response it
> may have generated.

Not intentionally malicious, sorry; etiology described below.

Here, fwiw, is my reply to yours of 9/22/2012 8:49 am EDT (GMT -0400),
followed by Andreas Prilop's response to that reply of mine --

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:49:07 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> (Sorry, I only just noticed that a message had recently appeared in
> this long-dormant newsgroup.)
>
> Successive versions of Word have accommodated successive additions to
> the Unicode system. It may be that Word2000 can't access the "Latin
> Extended Additional" block that contains t-underdot. But you should be
> able to insert 0323 "Combining Dot Below" from the Combining
> Diacritical Marks block. (For Skt. you also need d-underdot and s-
> underdot and s-acute.)

Thanks very much for your observation here on U+0323. That's new to me, and
welcome news. Certainly, rudimentary testing using WordPad on my current
Vista system confirms that the keystrokes [T] [0] [3] [2] [3] [Alt]-[X]
display finally as t-underdot there, a perfect look-alike for the 1E6D ṭ .

How that will play out in Word 2000 on the XP system, or in the resulting
PDF, I have yet to examine, but of course I have my hopes up, now :-) .

As for d-underdot, s-underdot, et al., we're not doing enormous amounts of
Sanskrit transliteration, just the occasional word (like the name Viraṭa),
so we've not run into those needs yet. And s-acute is an intrinsic part of
the Polish alphabet to begin with, so we're already covered there.

> I don't know what happens when you try to use a later avatar of TNR on
> a system that can't type the unfamiliar blocks. Maybe you can use the
> Alt-X trick to insert such characters (type the Unicode code, don't
> select the four digits, and immediately type Alt-X), maybe not! And

In WordPad on Vista and 7 that works. In Word 2007 I'll have to try & see.
In Word 2000 on XP it's as hopeless as any other attempt to achieve a ṭ .

> you should probably Uninstall the old TNR font before you Install the
> later one, because they might use the same ID tags, or worse the old
> one might get overwritten and it would be hard to replace it.

Yes; copy to a safe location for archival storage, and uninstall, quite so,
before attemptng to install an alternate TNR family.

Or, what was suggested elsewhere, use SourceForge's Junicode TTF family, a
not too unpleasant TNR-like set of TTF fonts designed for medievalists,
with considerable support for Sanskrit diacritically decorated glyphs.

> On Sep 17, 2:29 am, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlL...@att.net> wrote:
>> For transliterated Sanskrit, I need a lower-case "t" with a dot beneath it,
>> Unicode character 1E6D (the upper-case (uc) variant is 1E6C).
>>

>> Alas, ...

Thanks very much for your ideas. Cheers, -- tlvp

--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

--- [end of reply] ---
== and ==
--- [begin Andreas Prilop's reply thereto] ---
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, tlvp wrote:

> Thanks very much for your observation here on U+0323.

Support for letters with non-spacing combining marks is not yet
perfect. Precomposed letters still work better with current fonts
and with current browsers. Test your programs and fonts here:
http://www.user.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/combining-marks.html

--
Outgoing mail is certified free from defamation of Islam™
and insult of the Prophet™.
Checked by Thinkpol anti-obscenity system v. 6.66.
--- [end of Andreas Prilop's reply thereto] ---

>
> Would someone at "comp.fonts" be so kind as to crosspost my message
> and any discussion back here to where it originated?
>
> Thank you.

HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp (this time *not* accepting my news client's well-meant
reccommendation that I limit crossposting :-) ) .

BTW, while the 0323 / [Alt]-[X] strategy works just fine on XP in WordPad,
there's a real hurdle or two getting Word 2000 to play the same game.

First of all, Word acts deaf to the whole [Alt]-[X] gambit: instead, I have
to select and copy in WordPad, then paste to Word. And what happens?

U+1E6D looks beatiful in WordPad, but comes up as an empty rectangle in
Word in just about every font I've tried apart from Arial Unicode MS (yup,
even Tahoma can't get it to show).

t + U+0323 looks beautiful in WordPad, too, but comes up as a stand-alone
underdot followed by a l.c. t in Word, using TNR or Tahoma as font.

Maybe using Junicode (SourceForge TTF font family) is a good way out.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sep 25, 1:12 am, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlL...@att.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:29:55 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > I did not notice the malicious resetting of followups by "tlvp," so I
> > was puzzled by the non-appearance of my reply, and of any response it
> > may have generated.
>
> Not intentionally malicious, sorry; etiology described below.
>
> Here, fwiw, is my reply to yours of 9/22/2012 8:49 am EDT (GMT -0400),
> followed by Andreas Prilop's response to that reply of mine --

thanks -- response at the end.

> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, tlvp wrote:
> > Thanks very much for your observation here on U+0323.
>
> Support for letters with non-spacing combining marks is not yet
> perfect. Precomposed letters still work better with current fonts
> and with current browsers. Test your programs and fonts here:
>  http://www.user.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/combining-marks.html

I _think_ Word2007 or Office2007 or Windows 7 knows to substitute unit
characters when the "combining diacritics" are used to create
characters that exist somewhere in a Unicode block -- because it's
possible to assign a color to a diacritic (only, while the base letter
remains black) when such a precomposed character doesn't exist, but
not when it does.

> > Would someone at "comp.fonts" be so kind as to crosspost my message
> > and any discussion back here to where it originated?
>
> > Thank you.
>
> HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp (this time *not* accepting my news client's well-meant
> reccommendation that I limit crossposting :-) ) .
>
> BTW, while the 0323 / [Alt]-[X] strategy works just fine on XP in WordPad,
> there's a real hurdle or two getting Word 2000 to play the same game.
>
> First of all, Word acts deaf to the whole [Alt]-[X] gambit: instead, I have
> to select and copy in WordPad, then paste to Word. And what happens?
>
> U+1E6D looks beatiful in WordPad, but comes up as an empty rectangle in
> Word in just about every font I've tried apart from Arial Unicode MS (yup,
> even Tahoma can't get it to show).
>
> t + U+0323 looks beautiful in WordPad, too, but comes up as a stand-alone
> underdot followed by a l.c. t in Word, using TNR or Tahoma as font.
>
> Maybe using Junicode (SourceForge TTF font family) is a good way out.

You probably need to spend the $150 to upgrade to a current version of
Office. (They added some other useful features, and a lot that are
less than useful, and after you get used to using the Ribbon -- or
rather, the Quick Access Toolbar, where you put the icons for commands
you actually use, rather than the assortment that someone in Redmond
_thought_ you needed -- it really does make sense.) It comes with
(literally) a world of fonts.

[tlvp]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 05:24:27 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote, quoting
me and/or Andreas Prilop and/or others:

Not a chance -- one installation of Office Pro 2007 with MultiLingual
Proofing Tools is enough :-) !

> (They added some other useful features, and a lot that are
> less than useful, and after you get used to using the Ribbon -- or
> rather, the Quick Access Toolbar, where you put the icons for commands
> you actually use, rather than the assortment that someone in Redmond
> _thought_ you needed -- it really does make sense.) It comes with
> (literally) a world of fonts.

They added lots of undocumented new stuff, and removed lots of
well-documented old stuff, including some half (well, figuratively) of the
keyboard shortcuts the old Menu system taught me.

Had it not been for another newsgroup somewhere, I'd still be in the dark
about the QAT. And I can't for the life of me figure out which Tab of the
Ribbon a command I need is lurking within -- without hitting [F1] for help.

That's for Word 2007 on a Win 7 system. But I'm *not* installing that same
Office bundle on a second machine, thanks anyway :-) .

Still and all, thanks for the 0323 item, and related ideas. And thanks for
forgiving my inadvertent apparent malicious f-up revisioning -- unintended!

[Peter T. Daniels]

I suspect that isn't so ... but if your favorite shortcut is no longer
pre-installed, you can very easily install it.

Everyone agrees that the documentation gets worse and worse with every
release, but it's not clear that any features are _removed_ when
they've been superseded.

All the "Fields" commands etc. still work, they just don't tell you
about them anywhere. I have the Word 5.0 for Mac manual with its
extensive appendix on Field Codes, which AFAICT isn't available
anywhere, except maybe chopped up into tiny pieces in On-Line Help.

> Had it not been for another newsgroup somewhere, I'd still be in the dark
> about the QAT. And I can't for the life of me figure out which Tab of the
> Ribbon a command I need is lurking within -- without hitting [F1] for help.

If you need to use it, put it on the QAT. If it's something you use so
rarely that you don't remember from month to month where it is, then
where's the harm in looking in Help?

> That's for Word 2007 on a Win 7 system. But I'm *not* installing that same
> Office bundle on a second machine, thanks anyway :-) .

But to try to keep using Word2000?! Does the "Compatibility Pack" even
work in it, so that you can open .docx files?

I couldn't get along without the Bibliography Tool (defective though
it is).

[tlvp]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels asked, inter
aliae:

> ... Word2000?! Does the "Compatibility Pack" even
> work in it, so that you can open .docx files? ...

Never had to find out, as Word 2007 gladly saves in Word 2000 .doc format.

[tlvp]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> If you need to use it, put it on the QAT.

We do. QAT quickly gets far too overloaded, though.

> If it's something you use so
> rarely that you don't remember from month to month where it is, then
> where's the harm in looking in Help?

No harm -- unless you use it so rarely you can't easily recall a good
key-phrase by which to seek it in Help :-) .

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sep 27, 5:17 am, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlL...@att.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels asked, inter
> aliae:
>
> > ... Word2000?! Does the "Compatibility Pack" even
> > work in it, so that you can open .docx files? ...
>
> Never had to find out, as Word 2007 gladly saves in Word 2000 .doc format.

That doesn't help when someone sends you a file in .docx format!

Since you understand the programming of the styles, maybe you can help
me with this. I have a handful of references to books that don't name
an author, editor, or translator, so the reference and citation need
to use the Short Title.

Is there a way to italicize the Short Title option in the Author field

{%Author:1|Editor:1|Translator:1|ShortTitle%}

I tried putting the <i> </i> around both the label in the formula
above (no effect) and the Short Title entry in the record for the
individual item (alphabetizes under "<", i.e. the first character it
sees). (The second effect is strange, since the fences work fine for
italicizing words in an otherwise non-italic title.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sep 27, 5:21 am, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlL...@att.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > If you need to use it, put it on the QAT.
>
> We do. QAT quickly gets far too overloaded, though.
>
> > If it's something you use so
> > rarely that you don't remember from month to month where it is, then
> > where's the harm in looking in Help?
>
> No harm -- unless you use it so rarely you can't easily recall a good
> key-phrase by which to seek it in Help :-) .

I suppose you could go all the way to "Commands Not On The Ribbon" in
the Customize QAT department ...

[tlvp]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 06:17:11 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Sep 27, 5:17 am, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlL...@att.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels asked, inter
>> aliae:
>>
>>> ... Word2000?! Does the "Compatibility Pack" even
>>> work in it, so that you can open .docx files? ...
>>
>> Never had to find out, as Word 2007 gladly saves in Word 2000 .doc format.
>
> That doesn't help when someone sends you a file in .docx format!
>
> Since you understand the programming of the styles, maybe you can help
> me with this. I have a handful of references to books that don't name
> an author, editor, or translator, so the reference and citation need
> to use the Short Title.
>
> Is there a way to italicize the Short Title option in the Author field
>
> {%Author:1|Editor:1|Translator:1|ShortTitle%}

I'm far from expert at this, having managed, but only just barely, to
figure out how to get page numbers for a pair of sequential 5.5" x 8.5"
pages that will appear both on a letter-size sheet for 2-up printing
(on sheet (Word-page) # <n> we want both page # <2n-1> and page # <2n>).

But I believe that, with the Field "open" for editing ([F9], maybe? or
[Alt]-[F9]? or some such?), it should suffice to *select* the item you wish
to see italicized, then press [Ctrl]-[I] once (or any odd number of times),
and (of course) save the result.

Even though this is only comp.fonts, I'm confident someone will rush right
up to jump down my throat if I'm in any way wrong about that, and set us
both straight (in fact, I'm counting on it :-) ).

>
> I tried putting the <i> </i> around both the label in the formula

Might work in HTML, but not, probably, for Word Field Codes.

> above (no effect) and the Short Title entry in the record for the
> individual item (alphabetizes under "<", i.e. the first character it
> sees). (The second effect is strange, since the fences work fine for
> italicizing words in an otherwise non-italic title.)

HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sep 27, 9:42 pm, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlL...@att.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 06:17:11 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sep 27, 5:17 am, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlL...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels asked, inter
> >> aliae:
>
> >>> ... Word2000?! Does the "Compatibility Pack" even
> >>> work in it, so that you can open .docx files? ...
>
> >> Never had to find out, as Word 2007 gladly saves in Word 2000 .doc format.
>
> > That doesn't help when someone sends you a file in .docx format!
>
> > Since you understand the programming of the styles, maybe you can help
> > me with this. I have a handful of references to books that don't name
> > an author, editor, or translator, so the reference and citation need
> > to use the Short Title.
>
> > Is there a way to italicize the Short Title option in the Author field
>
> > {%Author:1|Editor:1|Translator:1|ShortTitle%}
>
> I'm far from expert at this, having managed, but only just barely, to
> figure out how to get page numbers for a pair of sequential 5.5" x 8.5"
> pages that will appear both on a letter-size sheet for 2-up printing
> (on sheet (Word-page) # <n> we want both page # <2n-1> and page # <2n>).
>
> But I believe that, with the Field "open" for editing ([F9], maybe? or
> [Alt]-[F9]? or some such?), it should suffice to *select* the item you wish
> to see italicized, then press [Ctrl]-[I] once (or any odd number of times),
> and (of course) save the result.

? Bibliography items (in references or lists) aren't fields; the
entire bibliography list is a single field. (The Bibliography tool was
barely integrated into Word -- while you can scroll the List of
Sources or the list of sources in a document by hovering over it like
a normal list, you can't scroll the display of the formatted entry in
the window below except with the scroll bar at the right. The drop-
down list of referenes that you get the citation from is in ASCII
order, not alphabetical, so anything starting with a lower-case letter
comes after all the ones starting with capital letters. Processes
involved in it cannot be undone or redone with Ctrl-Z or Ctrl-Y.)

And doing it individually would defeat the purpose of the system!

[tlvp]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> ... If you need to use it, put it on the QAT. If it's something you use so

> rarely that you don't remember from month to month where it is, then

> where's the harm in looking in Help? ...

Well, help me out with this, Peter, if you can: I'd like to put on the QAT
whatever Word 2007 now calls what used to be the Insert | Break | LineBreak
manoeuvre. But I can't find any useful help for getting to Insert LineBreak
or Insert NewLine. (Page Break, Section Break, Column Break, sure, those I
can find. But Line Break? Not since Word 2000, looks like to me :-) .)

TIA; and cheers, -- tlvp

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sep 28, 6:35 pm, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlL...@att.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > ... If you need to use it, put it on the QAT. If it's something you use so
> > rarely that you don't remember from month to month where it is, then
> > where's the harm in looking in Help? ...
>
> Well, help me out with this, Peter, if you can: I'd like to put on the QAT
> whatever Word 2007 now calls what used to be the Insert | Break | LineBreak
> manoeuvre. But I can't find any useful help for getting to Insert LineBreak
> or Insert NewLine. (Page Break, Section Break, Column Break, sure, those I
> can find. But Line Break? Not since Word 2000, looks like to me :-) .)

It is and AFAIK always has been Shift-Enter. (You mean the Non-
Printing Character of right-angled arrow pointing left, don't you?) I
can't imagine any situation where a QAT icon would be preferable to
typing it.

[tlvp]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 06:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>> ... I'd like to put on the QAT

>> whatever Word 2007 now calls what used to be the Insert | Break | LineBreak
>> manoeuvre. But I can't find any useful help for getting to Insert LineBreak
>> or Insert NewLine. (Page Break, Section Break, Column Break, sure, those I
>> can find. But Line Break? Not since Word 2000, looks like to me :-) .)
>
> It is and AFAIK always has been Shift-Enter. (You mean the Non-
> Printing Character of right-angled arrow pointing left, don't you?) I
> can't imagine any situation where a QAT icon would be preferable to
> typing it.

Wow! Shift-Enter (!) -- since sometime late in the 20th century I've been
going the click-path route described in my query (Insert | Break |
LineBreak). What a well-kept secret the Shift-Enter keystroke has been!
Thanks a million! Yes, obviously, no need now for any QAT for that :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp

[Peter T. Daniels]

:-)

> Cheers, -- tlvp

[The Horny Goat]

There's a Microsoft utility you can download that will open a docx if
you don't have Word 2007/2010 - which you can then save as a doc -
it's good for reading but you can't edit it. You could also try
opening it in WordPad (part of the MS Accessory folder)