On 5/11/2013 1:57 AM, Tim Li wrote:
Hi,
I have asked this question on tex.stackexchange.com
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/113592/formulas-in-context-are-differ...
as the title said, formulas typeset by ConTeXt are different from those by plain TeX. The minimal examples are here:
% plain luatex in ConTeXt standalone
$$\int_a^bf(x)dx=F(b)-F(a)$$ \bye
% context
\starttext \startformula \int\nolimits_a^bf(x)dx=F(b)-F(a) \stopformula \stoptext
Marco said to me that that's because the fonts used by LuaTeX and ConTeXt are different. This can be seen from the pdf produced by them
pdffonts context.pdf name type emb sub uni object ID ------------------------------------ ----------------- --- --- --- --------- OLAZTU+LMRoman12-Regular CID Type 0C yes yes yes 18 0 RXHAAY+LatinModernMath-Regular CID Type 0C yes yes yes 19 0 JTHTZJ+LatinModernMath-Regular CID Type 0C yes yes yes 20 0
pdffonts plain.pdf name type emb sub uni object ID ------------------------------------ ----------------- --- --- --- --------- APMHZE+LMMathExtension10-Regular Type 1 yes yes no 4 0 AWBTPY+LMMathItalic7-Regular Type 1 yes yes no 5 0 ITITNI+LMMathItalic10-Regular Type 1 yes yes no 6 0 DMNVHT+LMRoman10-Regular Type 1 yes yes no 7 0 MGKPYK+LMMathSymbols10-Regular Type 1 yes yes no 8 0
even if using the `modern-designsize-virtual` typescript(advice from Marco), I still get the different outputs.
Now, I get confused about this qustion. If ConTeXt uses LuaTeX as its engine, how can I tune ConTeXt so that it can produce the same formulas with those in plain TeX?
you could define your own 'plain like' math setup using type one fonts and families and all symbol names redefined or use the virtual lm instead -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------