Thanks for your response Hans.
On 25/07/2017 00:12, Hans Hagen wrote:
On
7/24/2017 11:41 PM, Sebastian L. wrote:
Yes it helps, thanks; it explains why
there was so little response to this. ;)
After some search I found regular style pictures of it. I was
sure, that it was italic as standard, because that's what
"modern" suggests: compability for current regulations (i.e.
regular constants, italic variables) as well as an attractive
style overall. But since Neo Euler seems to have no italic
style, it is of no use for academic purposes, like in my case.
originally "euler" is a math companion font to "concrete" and it's
not trivial to make en euler with all text styles (maybe some day
the tex gyre project will give it a try) .. btw, the same is true
for sans fonts: at some point one runs out of distinctive features
btw, it also fits with pagella (see type-imp-euler)
I don't want to argue with you Hans, as I know that you have better
things to do. But for clarification: for a non-power TeX / CTX user
this is information, that one usually doesn't get, as it makes deep
interest in fonts creation necessary. On the other hand I don't
expect you to be the one who teaches users about fonts,
relationships or even the motives behind their creation. Thanks for
your explanation though.
The story, to add to the subject of the
mail, in case somebody searches the archive for this, is that I
wasn't able to find out is how to change the math font only, as
i like the standard font with \setupbodyfont[sans] as global
setup but not the style of (non-modern) Euler.
I tried
\definefontfamily [mainface] [mm] [Xits Math]
most users who mess with fonts either use the selectfont mechanism
or peek into the type-imp files to see how to set up a combination
I see. Well I just used search on the CTX wiki to find information
about selectfont, but neither selectfont nor \selectfont gives me
any result. If it's something TeX related, then I have to say that I
didn't start to use CTX to get into TeX before. Anyways this is
where it starts. This time it's type-imp, other topics will make it
necessary to search other source files and then it starts over...
This is something for you, the other coders or users who want to
tweak CTX or its components, but a standard user will never do this,
as he usually doesn't know where to
look for info.
but this changes the whole typeface; not
what I want.
So the trick is to define the standard font for the rest of the
font variations. The standard font can be found out with
\showbodyfont. At least that's what it suggests. But it gives
you "modern-design" as font. When you use this within
\definefontfamily then it gives you nothing, because the real id
of the standard font is "modern". So to change the math font
only and keep the main font standard, you have to use this
command group (just in case somebody looks for it):
\definefontfamily [mainface] [rm] [Modern] % = serif
\definefontfamily [mainface] [ss] [Modern] % = sans
\definefontfamily [mainface] [tt] [Modern] % = mono (teletype)
\definefontfamily [mainface] [mm] [Xits Math] [rscale=1.03] % =
math
But as this seems to be so trivial, that few people care, I
really have to wonder why people who test CTX criticise the lack
of documentation. We (especially who haven't been through LaTeX
or even TeX) seem to be a minority.
In what sense?
In the sense that we (or let's even say just me) don't know where to
look for information. I mean how many software do you have, where
you go through its source files to understand how it does basic
tasks? For me it's only CTX and as a consequence thereof Textadept,
but for me that's already too much. So IMHO this must not be
the future... Except for those who can't stop loving open source
software that is usually made for a specific topic in the first
place.
Anyway, there is quite some documentation (also about fonts)
available (and the context distribution documentation section has
examples).
There you are right. There is so much documentation that it's
overwhelming. For instance documentation on fonts goes over several
wiki pages. Suffice it to say you have to know what you are looking
for, and not where. And the more you start searching, the more wiki
pages you have to go through. A better approach might be to merge
several pages that belong to a single chapter to one single wiki
page. But that's just my opinion. Another example: I have found
different links to manuals like Hoekwater's or Hagen's (on the
wiki). But on several pages you get links to several versions of the
manual, for instance I found one link to Hoekwater's 2003 version
and to 2011 or 2013 version (I don't remember the exact dates as I
deleted them both). Some time later I read that there is an online
manual somewhere in the download area, that has to be built first.
But there seems to be no manual for Windows users how to do this.
I.e. one has to get some basic Linux info or similar, just to build
a manual. I don't find this to be user friendly at all. That being
said, the US army has a code name for something like that: Charlie
Foxtrot (abbreviation for cluster fuck, i.e. chaos). So indeed there
is plenty of information, but most of it is written from the POV of
a long time user or a programmer. There clearly lacks documentation
from the POV of a simple user who has never used TeX or its kind.
I mean sure, it could be only me who has a hard time understanding
CTX, but since I have found out many things about CTX without asking
anybody but reading information that is already there, the fact that
I found out how to change only the math font after approx two years
somehow shows me, that it's not only some lack of my will to read
all the pages several times to understand CTX but also the lack of
passion in the documentation.
Still I won't give up. So far I am a happy CTX user.
Cheers, Sebastian
Cheers and thanks, S.
On 23/07/2017 21:22, Pablo Rodriguez wrote:
On 07/22/2017 03:16 AM, Sebastian L.
wrote:
Hi, I have trouble with Neo Euler font
after playing around with those
options.
[...]
I am pretty sure that before I started mixing the fonts in
one single
document, Neo Euler was italic.
Does anybody have a clue what might have went wrong?
Hi Sebastian,
as far as I remember, Neo Euler is a regular font only
(https://github.com/khaledhosny/euler-otf).
Euler is an italic font and it might have the other regular,
bold, bold
italic typefaces (I don’t know).
I hope it helps,
Pablo
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an
entry to the Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl /
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________