Hi Sanjoy,
I agree with you to say that the position of subscripts and superscripts in mkiv is not perfect: the same remark applies to the position of the derivative sign « prime » as $u’(t)$.
Actually in mkii (and also in plain TeX) the positions of the superscripts in your example are the same, but this is not the case with subscripts:
$x_{3}\ x\mathstrut_{3}$
that is in mkii the latter $x\mathstrut_{3}$ gives a lower subscript, while in plain TeX both subscripts are positioned at an identical depth.
I would say the position of subscripts and superscripts in mkiv should be identical with one gets with the latest beta (version 2014.03.20 16:59) in the following example
\starttext
$x\mathstrut_{3}$ and $x\mathstrut^{3}$
\stoptext
However as Hans pointed out, regarding maths typesetting in mkiv there are also some font related issues.
Best regards: OK
On 21 mars 2014, at 17:34, Sanjoy Mahajan
Dear math typesetting aficianados,
In the following example,
\starttext $x^3\ x\mathstrut^3$ \stoptext
the superscript without the strut is about 2pt lower than with the strut, using MkIV. With MkII or plain TeX, they are the same height (at the higher position obtained by using the \mathstrut in MkIV).
My eye tells me that the higher position looks more right. Do others agree? Or, if it's a matter of taste, is the difference configurable so that one can get the MkII behavior even without the \mathstrut?
-- -Sanjoy ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________