Hello,
thanks for the explanation -
On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 09:55:25 +0100, Hans Hagen
On 3-12-2010 5:00, Procházka Lukáš Ing. - Pontex s. r. o. wrote:
to get slanted chars, I have to call \it or \sl or \bi explicitly. OK, I
In fact in math these are not font switches, but switches to a different alphabet. In traditional tex that normally is a font switch so one gets the other bold or whatever shapes for free, given that they are in that font (so it's a side effect of the way math alphabets are implemented), but not so in open type math.
there is no default math font in mkiv: one uses regular math or bold math (given that there are two font(set)s available which is seldom the case) and within them gets bold or heavy alphabets (plus a few chars)
- So does it mean that the Vladimir's "cambria case" is exactly the seldom case when regular and bold math are available, both defining Greek chars like \alpha as well?
\setupbodyfont[cambria]
\starttext This is a test. $a=\alpha$ $\bf a=\alpha$ $\bi a=\alpha$ \stoptext
Please, could you give more examples of normal and bold math fonts "of the same kin" (to be used for normal and bold math), both having Greek letters as well?
- Vladimir showed "cambria". Unfortunately, his solution changes the entire document bodyfont (i.e. non-math font as well).
- What is the relationship to AMS fonts (http://www.ams.org/publications/authors/tex/amsfonts)? Or how to make them accessible in Ctx document? How to make them work?
- - On the site it's written: "... What is AMSFonts? ... *Subscript sizes of bold math italic and bold Greek letters* ... Because these fonts are standard TeX fonts, they may be used with any standard TeX system ... "
- - Wouldn't this be exactly what I'm looking for?
Maybe \setupformulas[
best try to convert to the unicode math approach: bold a-z is different unicode slots than a-z and in context the \bf command does that transformation on ascii a-z (you can also key in the official unicode chars); the benefit is that you can cut and paste the bold characters in pdf files i.e. you retain that property; a bold b is not a bold one in typographic sense but a special symbol that happens to use a bold rendering; in for instance a section title, one can have all math bold, and then this regular bold character will become real bold
Hans
I guess this approach won't be useful in my situation. I need to generate some math by Lua. There is a function that should generate a context formulas with mixed case and/or Greek letters, e.g.: function t(var) context("$" .. var .. "\\alpha = {\\bf " .. -- Or something else instead of "bf" var "\\alpha}") end t("Abc") So the variable name a priori cannot have information whether or not to be printed with regular or bold math - this is up to the function 't()'. --- Now I'm trying to understand "This Way" (11/2003, mag-0005.pdf) where the mixed case is investigated. Also the "co-fonts.pdf"; but it seems to me that this document is a bit out-of-date and "mfonts.pdf" should be used instead. And also Mojca's presentation from Brejlov, the "some-thoughts-about-typescripts.pdf". To be honest, I have a bit mess with fonts: I'm trying to deduce the relationship between: "font script" (text/script/scriptscript?), "font typescript" (serif, sans-serif, math, mono, other?), "font size [marking]" (xx/x/?/a/b/c/d/e; ?/xsmall/small/?/?...?, 5pt, 6pt... 40pt; ... at 6pt, ... at 20pt...; sixpoint,eightpoint,tenpoint... used in some commands), "font weight" (light? semilight? normal/semibold/bold/extrabold?), "font family", "font typeface" - When I look at the Figure 1 "The current bodyfont environment" in mfonts.pdf, I see: \showbodyfontenvironment % [lbr] [lucida] [11.0pt] text script scriptscript x xx small big interlinespace 20.7pt 14.4pt 12pt 17.3pt 14.4pt 17.3pt 20.7pt not set 17.3pt 12.1pt 8.6pt 13.8pt 10.3pt 13.8pt 20.7pt not set ... So what's the relationship between "text", "script", "scriptscript" (and?) "x", "xx", "small" and "big"? Why size for the "script" on the first line is the same for "xx", "text" as for "big" and "x" the same as "small"? Why doesn't work the same on the next lines as well? - The abbreviations for [typefaces?]: rm = ? RoMan? (means serif) (but also wrong "Regular Math" comes to place) ss = Sans Serif tt = TeleType (but means Mono as well) mm = Math what? MatheMatics? (used for typesetting inside $...$) - When I call \definetypeface[whow][rm][serif][modern][computer-modern][encoding=ec] ("mfonts.pdf", pg. 10), why the arguments are "rm" and "serif", although they mark (?) the same [script/"shape"]? - - Why once "modern" and once "computer-modern"? - When I call ("mag-0005.pdf", pg. 4): \definetypeface [mainface] [mm] [bfmath] [lucida] [default] \definetypeface [boldmath] [mm] [bfmath] [lucida] [default] - - Why arguments are "mm" and "bfmath"? Is there also "math" available instead of "bfmath"? - - Why 5 args are provided, whereas 6 args were provided in the example before? - Statement ("mag-0005.pdf", pg. 4): \formula {1 \beta \Gamma = \bfm 1 \beta \Gamma x’ z} - - Where the "\bfm" switch comes from? Is this the effect exactly of "\definetypeface[...][mm][BFMATH][...]? Or would the "\bfm" work anyway (in the manner that [Con]TeX[t] wouldn't generate any error message, but the result would be wrong? - - Is the "\bfm" the right switch to switch to bold math, providing that an appropriate bold math font have been defined? So the "\bf" wouldn't work (as it uses alphabet switching = another mechanism)? - What would happen if I called [senseless]: \definetypeface[DUMMY][rm][mono][modern][cambria][encoding=ec] - - i.e. (probably senseless) "rm" vs. "mono" and "modern" vs. "cambria"? Sorry for so long mail - maybe font stuff will be clearer to me in the future when I success to "invent" more relationship among all it. Best regards, Lukas