lower superscripts in MkIV -- too low?
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
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 ___________________________________________________________________________________
On 3/22/2014 8:17 AM, Otared Kavian wrote:
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.
we have a more modern implementation in the next beta ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------
However as Hans pointed out, regarding maths typesetting in mkiv there are also some font related issues. we have a more modern implementation in the next beta
I realized that this would also fix my issue with the superscripted degree symbol coming out too low (which I had mysteriously thought was only for that symbol). I will happily test the new beta on a myriad of superscripts that haunt my .tex files. -Sanjoy
we have a more modern implementation in the next beta
I tested the following with various flavors: $ x\mathstrut_{3} x_{3} x^3 x\mathstrut^3 x^\circ x\mathstrut^\circ 20\mathstrut^\circ 20^\circ $ Flavors that I tried: 2014.03.27 MkIV 2014.02.14 MkIV 2013.06.07 MkII (from latest beta) pdfTeX 1.40.14 (from Debian TL 2013) (wrapping in \(start|stop)text or ending with \bye, as appropriate). My observations: The MkII and pdftex subscripts look too high. I know that's sacreligious, since it is what Knuth must have intended, and I am surprised that I didn't notice it before. The 2014.02.14 MkIV subscript with the strut looks too low, although the x^3 with the strut looks reasonable, or is maybe just slightly too high. The x^\circ looks fine. The x\mathstrut^\circ is too high. But the 20\mathstrut^\circ looks right (and looks too low without the strut). In 2014.03.27 MkIV, the subscript- and subscript heights are unchanged by the strut. The subscript heights look right. The superscript heights all look okay, except for the 20\mathstrut^\circ, which is too low (same height as without the strut). In earlier versions, one could raise the \circ using a \mathstrut, but that no longer has an effect. The other change, and maybe I am hallucinating this one, is that the horizontal spacing between the x and the 3 is now slightly different with and without the strut: It is tighter with the strut. I think it looks better without the strut, but am not sure. So, overall I think it has improved. I also wonder: 1. about the right horizontal spacing (how tight it should be) 2. how to raise the \circ in 20^\circ -Sanjoy
participants (3)
-
Hans Hagen -
Otared Kavian -
Sanjoy Mahajan