I use Context for highly formatted non-fiction, but I am a bit reluctant to use it for much of my work because of the strange (to me) font handling arrangements. I see no purpose for the multiple synonyms of the same font. That just adds layers of extra work. And I am used to tweaking both the font size and the baselineskip by fractional amounts to help in getting the pagination just right and the spacing on the individual page correct. For example I have the main body font on a current project defined thus: \font\rm=8r-AGaramond-Regular at 10.5pt and this: \baselineskip 12.0pt plus .25pt If the page comes up a line short because of strict widow prevention then the extra space is distributed imperceptibly among the lines. \parskip is 0 pt for this novel. With a fixed baselineskip the extra space is distributed only at paragraph breaks, which gives an ugly result. This kind of fine tuning by users is perhaps foreign to Context as it now exists. Font sizes are in fixed steps for one thing. However abandoning the typescript etc. process deprives one of the useful feature of using tfa, tfb, tfx etc. to adjust font sizes semi-automatically. So here is my question. If I set up my own font definition system and as part of it I have statements like: \font\tfa bchr8r at 10.45pt \font\tfb bchr8r at 11.37pt ... ... will the rest of Context accept the above tfb font and size in places where a heading macro automatically defaults to tfb? John Culleton
Hi John, John R. Culleton wrote:
I use Context for highly formatted non-fiction, but I am a bit reluctant to use it for much of my work because of the strange (to me) font handling arrangements. I see no purpose for the multiple synonyms of the same font. That just adds layers of extra work.
It also adds layers of configurability. Clearly you do not need that (your font setups is extremely simple and low-level), but lots of other people do. For example, I have documents that use 6 totally different font sets, because all 'examples' and 'definitions' are typeset in font families that differ from the normal text font family. It would be a nightmare if I had to define and remember the 200+ font definitions by hand.
If the page comes up a line short because of strict widow prevention then the extra space is distributed imperceptibly among the lines.
It is only imperceptible if the paper you print on does not shine through at all, and if you use a noteblock (head) binding instead of book (back) binding, so it is not something I would recommend for general use.
This kind of fine tuning by users is perhaps foreign to Context as it now exists. Font sizes are in fixed steps for one thing.
The fixed steps (of .1pt) are actually an optimization, and it is possible to circumvent that, using either \chardef\fontdigits=2 or \def\normalizebodyfontsize#1\to#2{\setvalue{#2}{#1}}
So here is my question. If I set up my own font definition system and as part of it I have statements like: \font\tfa bchr8r at 10.45pt \font\tfb bchr8r at 11.37pt ... ... will the rest of Context accept the above tfb font and size in places where a heading macro automatically defaults to tfb?
Only if you never make any \{setup,switchto}bodyfont switches after your new font definitions. Cheers, Taco
Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Hi John,
John R. Culleton wrote:
I use Context for highly formatted non-fiction, but I am a bit reluctant to use it for much of my work because of the strange (to me) font handling arrangements. I see no purpose for the multiple synonyms of the same font. That just adds layers of extra work.
It also adds layers of configurability. Clearly you do not need that (your font setups is extremely simple and low-level), but lots of other people do. For example, I have documents that use 6 totally different font sets, because all 'examples' and 'definitions' are typeset in font families that differ from the normal text font family. It would be a nightmare if I had to define and remember the 200+ font definitions by hand.
Also, when you want some special size, by using the synonyms you can say \definedfont[Serif at 123pt] without worrying about what the current serif is. Many years ago, Taco wrote a style for the dutch math journal which had several font sets, complex columns, mixed encodings per document, etc (i still do not understand how he managed to do it in those-days context -). A few years later when some specs changed I was asked to rewrite those styles and in the process typescripts (font classes), column sets (complex figure placement) and some more things evolved. Since then Taco and I have less nighmares -)
So here is my question. If I set up my own font definition system and as part of it I have statements like: \font\tfa bchr8r at 10.45pt \font\tfb bchr8r at 11.37pt ... ... will the rest of Context accept the above tfb font and size in places where a heading macro automatically defaults to tfb?
Only if you never make any \{setup,switchto}bodyfont switches after your new font definitions.
if you want that, you'd say: \definefont[MyNiceBigFont][bchr8r at 10.45pt] or better: \usetypescript [serif] [charter] [ec] \definefont[MyNiceBigFont][Charter-Roman at 10.45pt] in which case you at least see what font is used, and more important, you get the encoding for free \setuphead[chapter][style=\MyNiceBigFont] btw, if there is a system behind those sizes, you can say: \definebodyfontenvironment [default] [a=1.045, b=1.137] and such which lets the a-d sizes scale that way Hans
participants (3)
-
Hans Hagen -
John R. Culleton -
Taco Hoekwater