Hello, I am experimenting with old-style figures (or text figures, as they are also called). Basically, I would like every number in my source document to be typeset in old-style figures (OSF) by default unless stated otherwise. This means: I want to reverse the mechanism so that I can explicitly say where NOT to use OSF. As a work-around I found the following on the list: \defineconversion[number][\os] \defineconversion[numbers][\os] This does not work for plain digits in the text, but it works for generated numbers like page numbers, and, to some degree, for the generated numbers of floats. \starttext \chapter[sample]{Sample} \placefigure[here][a]{cap}{test} Reference: \in{figure}[a] \section[test]{Test} \stoptext In this setup, chapter numbers do not use OSF, and the numbers of figures (as well as references to them) use a mixed form, which looks rather odd. I can add \setuphead[chapter,section][numberstyle=\os] which makes heading numbers use OSF, but then again, references like \in[sample] do not work. Also, the numbering of the section changes from 1.1 to 1>1 (where > is a right pointing triangle). To see the results, you can process this: ------------------------ cut here --------------------- \defineconversion[number][\os] \defineconversion[numbers][\os] \setuphead[chapter,section][numberstyle=\os] \starttext \chapter[sample]{Sample} This is chapter \in[sample]. Below is \in{section}[test]. Here is \in{figure}[a] on \at{page}[a] \placefigure[here][a]{Caption}{FIGURE} \section[test]{Test} \stoptext ------------------------ cut here --------------------- Is there any way, to change the numbering style globally? Thanks, Viktor -- +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f�r Mail, Message, More +++ 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 at 13:52:40+0200, varheit@gmx.de wrote:
Is there any way, to change the numbering style globally?
We just had a discussion about this. Maybe http://archive.contextgarden.net/thread/20050413.132347.43f37eb6.html will be of help. Greetings, -- Eckhart
We just had a discussion about this. Maybe http://archive.contextgarden.net/thread/20050413.132347.43f37eb6.html will be of help.
Thanks, Eckhart. Shame on me, I did not find this thread. I've just tried the example but it does not work here. I still get ordinary numbers. I am using teTeX 3.0, and my ConText is: ConTeXt ver: 2005.01.31 fmt: 2005.4.27 int: english mes: english Maybe I have to set up anything else? Viktor -------------------------------------------------------------------- \usetypescript[adobekb][\defaultencoding] \usetypescript [modern][\defaultencoding] \usetypescript [map] [latin-modern-os] [\defaultencoding] \setupbodyfont[modern] \starttext test 1234 test \stoptext -- +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f�r Mail, Message, More +++ 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
Viktor Varheit said this at Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:33:12 +0200:
ConTeXt ver: 2005.01.31 fmt: 2005.4.27 int: english mes: english
Maybe I have to set up anything else?
I'm not entirely certain the magic mapfile is in the main release. (Can't check--on the road currently.)
\usetypescript[adobekb][\defaultencoding]
This is an unnecessary line.
\usetypescript [modern][\defaultencoding] \usetypescript [map] [latin-modern-os] [\defaultencoding] \setupbodyfont[modern]
Okay, this should (once you get it to work with the LM fonts) work, but only partially to your requirements--the mapfile magic re-encodes all fonts so all numerals are text figures. In order to get lining figures on command in every context, it'll take a bunch more typescripts (and a few fontvariants defined). For something a little more tractable, we can have a (not very robust) hack that switches to math mode (and therefore CM, not LM) when you want the occasional lining figure. I'll leave auto detection of bold vs normal weight as an exercise for the reader: \usetypescript [modern][\defaultencoding] \usetypescript [map] [latin-modern-os] [\defaultencoding] \definetypeface[boldmath][mm][boldmath][computer-modern] [computer-modern][encoding=default] \setupbodyfont[modern] \def\Lining{\formula} \def\BoldLining{\formula[boldmath]} \starttext test 1234 test \ss test 1234 test \rm test \Lining{1234} test \bf test \BoldLining{1234} test \stoptext And this is all pretty much specific to Latin Modern at the moment. You're looking at fontvariants, most likely, if you want it with your own fonts. (Recommendation (and PracTeX Journal plug:) this is done fairly easily with rich OpenType fonts.) -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Adam T. Lindsay, Computing Dept. atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk Lancaster University, InfoLab21 +44(0)1524/510.514 Lancaster, LA1 4WA, UK Fax:+44(0)1524/510.492 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 at 15:33:12+0200, Viktor Varheit wrote:
Thanks, Eckhart. Shame on me, I did not find this thread. I've just tried the example but it does not work here. I still get ordinary numbers.
I am using teTeX 3.0, and my ConText is: ConTeXt ver: 2005.01.31 fmt: 2005.4.27 int: english mes: english
Maybe I have to set up anything else?
Viktor
-------------------------------------------------------------------- \usetypescript[adobekb][\defaultencoding] \usetypescript [modern][\defaultencoding] \usetypescript [map] [latin-modern-os] [\defaultencoding] \setupbodyfont[modern]
\starttext
test 1234 test
\stoptext
Works here. I have pdfeTeX, Version 3.14159-1.10a-RC3-2.1 (Web2C 7.4.3) ConTeXt ver: 2005.04.19 fmt: 2005.4.27 int: english mes: english I am no font expert, so I don't really know what additional setups can be done for this, sorry. -- Eckhart
Eckhart Guthöhrlein said this at Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:52:50 +0200:
Works here. I have
pdfeTeX, Version 3.14159-1.10a-RC3-2.1 (Web2C 7.4.3) ConTeXt ver: 2005.04.19 fmt: 2005.4.27 int: english mes: english
Right. I checked the latest main branch release (2005.02.03) from the website, and it's missing the magic map file that Idris originally cited. So the solution to Viktor is to update to the beta or wait for a main release. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Adam T. Lindsay, Computing Dept. atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk Lancaster University, InfoLab21 +44(0)1524/510.514 Lancaster, LA1 4WA, UK Fax:+44(0)1524/510.492 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Idris asked me about this during the previous thread, before I'd joined this list. Here's a slightly edited version of my reply about osf in documents with math: Well, I did the second-pass macros, and most of the math markup / editing of a recent translation of Thomas Harriot's _Artis Analyticae Praxis_ from 1631 or so, and it (of course) uses old style figures exclusively, pre-dating them, as would any mathematics (or other) text before the latter part of the 19th century. Old-style figures are named thusly since the now standard alternative lining figures are a fairly recent invention --- a Victorian (some would say debased) convention born out of expedience and a desire for better looking tabular material --- many railed against them, Charles Babbage being a notable example of the opposition to them (noting that in tables of logarithms, when used in difficult circumstances (I believe the example was an artillery officer doing ballistic calculations) absolute unambiguous representation could be a matter of life and death and that the extra differentiation provided by ascenders and descenders in numbers was highly desirable --- can't recall if Dr. Asaf Degani revisited this with his NASA reports on typography or no --- if not, he should've). Bringhurst's prescription (in his _Elements of Typographic Style) is perhaps a bit simplistic and doesn't acknowledge the typographical palette which has since become readily available in newer fonts (Hoefler Text in Mac OS X for example affords one proportional lining figures, monospaced lining figures, proportional old-style figures and lining old-style figures --- a text typeface I've been working on goes this even better, adding three-quarter height proportional and monospaced figures, and French versions of the old-style figure versions as well). Bringhurst's rule 3.2.3 would seem a better arbiter, ``Refer typographical disputes to the higher courts of speech and thinking.''. Knuth, in ``Typesetting Concrete Mathematics'' (_Digital Typography_, pg. 369) has a cogent observation when he writes, ``This experience proved to be worthwhile because it taught me that there is a useful and meaningful distinction between text numerals and mathematical numbers.'' There's been some discussion of old-style figures for mathematics on comp.text.tex, but I don't think any absolute statement could reasonably be made. It's certainly valid that using lining figures for mathematics does provide a useful distinction (and it also greatly eases typographic issues such as the placement of super and sub-scripts), but the counter-argument that mathematics is a valid textual discussion form is certainly appropriate as well. Arguably this would be a good place to use Bruce Roger's ``allusive typography'' principle. Anything set in a design more recent than Baskerville should use of lining figures in the absence of a reason not, while older texts could consider the use of old-style figures if concerns such as super and sub script placement can be worked out. But perhaps even that's too simplistic and formulaic. A far more productive thing probably would be to look at actual sample pages to consider things in context (sorry, couldn't resist the pun). Anyway, I hope this helps somewhat and is of use in your consideration. William -- William Adams, publishing specialist voice - 717-731-6707 | Fax - 717-731-6708 www.atlis.com
participants (5)
-
Adam Lindsay -
Eckhart Guthöhrlein -
varheit＠gmx.de -
Viktor Varheit
-
William F. Adams