On 9/26/2021 16:29, Wolfgang Schuster via ntg-context wrote:
Rik Kabel via ntg-context schrieb am 26.09.2021 um 22:13:
Hello list mavens,
What are the circumstances under which style=italicface should be used instead of style=italic. I note a difference when I define highlighting. I expected to see no difference in the line before and line after the hairline the example below, but see that italicface adapts to nesting, while italic does not:
Are there other places where this makes a difference?
\setupbodyfontenvironment [default] [em=italicface] %same with italic for this example \definehighlight [emIt] [style=italic] \definehighlight [emIf] [style=italicface] \definehighlight [emEm] [style=\em]
\starttext
{\em abc {\em def} ghi}: \type{\em}
\emph{abc {\emph def} ghi}: \type{\emph}
\emEm{abc {\emEm def} ghi}: \type{\emEm \definehighlight[style=\em]}
\emIf{abc {\emIf def} ghi}: \type{\emIf \definehighlight[style=italicface]}
\hairline
\emIt{abc {\emIt def} ghi}: \type{\emIt \definehighlight[style=italic]}
\stoptext
The \em command has two special values which are allowed when you change the style with
\setupbodyfontenvironment[default][em=...]
with the value "slanted" and "italic". When you choose one of them the result depends on the current weight (\tf or \bf) but with every other value you're just using whatever the style command/name provides.
When you pass "italicface" you're using a style which uses either \it or \bi dependant on the current weight. The result from the "italic" value doesn't depend on the behavior or the normal italic style (\it) which is the reason why you get different result when you use \em compared with \it.
Example:
\starttext
\tex{it}: normal {\it italic} {\bf bold {\it italic}}
\tex{italicface}: normal {\italicface italic} {\bf bold {\italicface italic}}
\tex{em}: normal {\em italic} {\bf bold {\em italic}}
\stoptext
Wolfgang
Wolfgang, I understand that mechanism, but I am asking a different question, I think. When we specify style=\em or style=italic (and most examples I see use the later) in a setup of some sort, I think most folks expect similar behavior, but clearly it is not because italic does not track changes in emphasis. However, style=italicface does seem to match the behavior of style=\em (mostly, see the bug report below). So, I am asking whether, in places where folks often use style=italic, it might be better to consider style=italicface. Bug report: \meaning\italicface gives: protected macro:\relax \ifx \fontalternative \s!tf \it \orelse \ifx \fontalternative \s!bf \bi \else \tf \fi This leaves out the transition from bi to bf. That transition is done by \emph, but \emph may give slanted while \italicface is always italic. -- Rik
