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
Best Answer
Noto Sans Korean
or originalSource Han Sans
should be OK. However, you should use a latest (unreleased) version ofxdvipdfmx
patched by Jiang Jiang not long ago.Realted: XeTeX: CID-keyed font support?
Precompiled
xdvipdfmx
:xdvipdfmx.exe.xz
xdvipdfmx.zip
xdvipdfmx.lzma
(SVN r36412)