-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NTG-context] New beta 2010-09-22 and xits fonts
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:03:13 +0200
From: Otared Kavian
[…] I uploaded a new beta. As a side effect of the changed table loader some info was missing.
Hans
Hi, Many thanks Hans: now xits fonts work as before (with ConTeXt ver: 2010.09.24 11:40 MKIV fmt: 2010.9.24). However, for some reason it seems that the white space (or should I say the glue?) between some operators such as \int and the following characters is too big. For instance the following %%%% begin xits-int.tex \starttext \startbuffer[Test] Since $F(u)={\rm e}^{x/n}$, it is clear that \startformula \int {\rm e}^x = F(u)^n. \stopformula \stopbuffer \getbuffer[Test] \switchtobodyfont[xits] \getbuffer[Test] \stoptext %%%% end xits-int.tex results in the attached PDF: notice the difference between the integral sign in LM and in xits. I am just reporting the issue for debugging, since one may always write \int\!\!\! to add a manual correction, but this is not a « solution ». Best and warmest regards: OK
Am 25.09.2010 um 18:07 schrieb Hans Hagen:
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NTG-context] New beta 2010-09-22 and xits fonts Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:03:13 +0200 From: Otared Kavian
To: Hans Hagen On 24 sept. 2010, at 12:00, Hans Hagen wrote:
[…] I uploaded a new beta. As a side effect of the changed table loader some info was missing.
Hans
Hi,
Many thanks Hans: now xits fonts work as before (with ConTeXt ver: 2010.09.24 11:40 MKIV fmt: 2010.9.24). However, for some reason it seems that the white space (or should I say the glue?) between some operators such as \int and the following characters is too big. For instance the following
%%%% begin xits-int.tex \starttext
\startbuffer[Test] Since $F(u)={\rm e}^{x/n}$, it is clear that \startformula \int {\rm e}^x = F(u)^n. \stopformula \stopbuffer
\getbuffer[Test] \switchtobodyfont[xits] \getbuffer[Test] \stoptext %%%% end xits-int.tex
results in the attached PDF: notice the difference between the integral sign in LM and in xits.
I am just reporting the issue for debugging, since one may always write \int\!\!\! to add a manual correction, but this is not a « solution ».
Another problem is \setupbodyfont[xits] \startTEXpage[offset=1ex] $k\choose n$ \stopTEXpage Greeting Andreas
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 06:07:27PM +0200, Hans Hagen wrote:
[…] I uploaded a new beta. As a side effect of the changed table loader some info was missing.
Hans
Hi,
Many thanks Hans: now xits fonts work as before (with ConTeXt ver: 2010.09.24 11:40 MKIV fmt: 2010.9.24). However, for some reason it seems that the white space (or should I say the glue?) between some operators such as \int and the following characters is too big.
Seems like another italic correction related issue. Taco, should the italic correction be ignored if the \int does not have scripts? Regards, Khaled -- Khaled Hosny Arabic localiser and member of Arabeyes.org team Free font developer
On 09/25/2010 09:00 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote:
Many thanks Hans: now xits fonts work as before (with ConTeXt ver: 2010.09.24 11:40 MKIV fmt: 2010.9.24). However, for some reason it seems that the white space (or should I say the glue?) between some operators such as \int and the following characters is too big.
Seems like another italic correction related issue. Taco, should the italic correction be ignored if the \int does not have scripts?
This gets sort of ridiculous, as *ignoring* the italic correction is not good enough, it has to be explicitly substracted from the glyph width (at least that is the case for the integrals with subscripts so I assume that that will apply here as well). Why on earth would someone design a font in this manner ?! Anyway, a small test file would be helpful, as it should not be hard to do. Can you create a tracker? Best wishes, Taco
On 26-9-2010 9:58, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
On 09/25/2010 09:00 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote:
Many thanks Hans: now xits fonts work as before (with ConTeXt ver: 2010.09.24 11:40 MKIV fmt: 2010.9.24). However, for some reason it seems that the white space (or should I say the glue?) between some operators such as \int and the following characters is too big.
Seems like another italic correction related issue. Taco, should the italic correction be ignored if the \int does not have scripts?
This gets sort of ridiculous, as *ignoring* the italic correction is not good enough, it has to be explicitly substracted from the glyph width (at least that is the case for the integrals with subscripts so I assume that that will apply here as well). Why on earth would someone design a font in this manner ?!
Anyway, a small test file would be helpful, as it should not be hard to do. Can you create a tracker?
is this to be hardcoded or do we need flags for that so that we can set the method depending on the font .. implementing redicoulous specs sounds somewhat strange Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 01:05:21PM +0200, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 26-9-2010 9:58, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
On 09/25/2010 09:00 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote:
Many thanks Hans: now xits fonts work as before (with ConTeXt ver: 2010.09.24 11:40 MKIV fmt: 2010.9.24). However, for some reason it seems that the white space (or should I say the glue?) between some operators such as \int and the following characters is too big.
Seems like another italic correction related issue. Taco, should the italic correction be ignored if the \int does not have scripts?
This gets sort of ridiculous, as *ignoring* the italic correction is not good enough, it has to be explicitly substracted from the glyph width (at least that is the case for the integrals with subscripts so I assume that that will apply here as well). Why on earth would someone design a font in this manner ?!
Anyway, a small test file would be helpful, as it should not be hard to do. Can you create a tracker?
is this to be hardcoded or do we need flags for that so that we can set the method depending on the font .. implementing redicoulous specs sounds somewhat strange
AFAICT, both XITS and Cambria integrals should look OK with no italic correction applied (both have around .1em right side bearing) and no negative italic correction is needed. I'll open a tracker issue with a test file. Regards, Khaled -- Khaled Hosny Arabic localiser and member of Arabeyes.org team Free font developer
participants (4)
-
Andreas Harder
-
Hans Hagen
-
Khaled Hosny
-
Taco Hoekwater