Re: [NTG-context] Choosing STIX stylistic sets

On 4/16/2017 6:01 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:

...

On 16 Apr 2017, at 16:37, Hans Hagen wrote:

On 4/16/2017 3:56 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:

...

...

On 15 Apr 2017, at 00:22, Hans Hagen wrote:

On 4/14/2017 12:42 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:

...

With the STIX Two fonts [1-2], one can choose say Stylistic Set 8 <ss08> for more upright integrals. How is that done in ConTeXt with XITS?

1. https://sourceforge.net/projects/stixfonts/ 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIX_Fonts_project#STIX_2.0.0

see stix-two-math.lfg

\setmathfontalternate{whatever}

This is complicated, it seems: The STIX2Math font does not have the text support that STIX has, so one might want a virtual font, or set the math font independently (I could find any info about that on ConTeXtGarden).

there is no real text support in math fonts ... it's alphabets ... the fact that one shares e.g. a textfont in math mode with a regular text font outside math is something traditional tex (and more a font design and macro package issue that an engine thing)

So far I have only used \setupbodyfont[xits,10pt], but found no info about how to specifically selecting fonts for the different modes or ranges.

\setupbodyfont[termes] \setupbodyfont[pagella] \setupbodyfont[bonum] on windows (cambria is the opentype reference fonmt for math): \setupbodyfont[cambria] or when you bought lucida ot: \setupbodyfont[lucidaot] all have math

...

just use a text font .. why does texinfo needs a math font? only for math i assume

Right, and writing the Unicode math characters in the UTF-8 source file, in part because they will be also used as such in the source code of a program. One can otherwise embed formulas using traditional TeX syntax.

it's a bit more complex in the tex world: users are accustomed to seeing the a in $a$ becoming a math italic a and $\bf a$ getting a bold a .. both are in the unicode math alphabet so a macro package has to support both these switch driven inputs and direct unicode math (also because cut and paste from a pdf should work) (the way macro packages implement that can be fundamental different) (there is a font project under way that will provide monospaced math characters for editing)

...

...

Also, in script/calligraphic, STIX2 seems to have is the other way around relative stix-two-math.lfg: setting the feature 'ss01' yields the traditional English script style, whereas the default is the AMS calligraphic style.

that's also a design issue

Not anymore, perhaps, as some mathematicians seem to think of them as different semantic styles.

if so, then that will be reflected in unicode alphabets (just make a string case for it)

...

...

On most other features, the STIX2 default seems to what I think of as traditional.

personally i'd never use stix for something

I used STIX because it came around, and, also, the AMS has been involved. It good there are other fonts, though.

finally came around .. but it's not a pretty font

...

(one can use texgyre pagella or termes)

What is the advantage of those?

a palatino based font looks imo better than stix (as open type font they are around a bit longer and we have a bit more influence on their development) Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------