Jim schrieb am 11.11.2024 um 22:49:

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 21:30 (+0100), Wolfgang Schuster wrote:

...

Jim schrieb am 11.11.2024 um 19:34:

...

Hi,

I would expect (*cough*)

\starttext 2\inch \stoptext

to output something like

2"

with some appropriate typographic symbols following the 2. Instead, I get a 2 with a large prime symbol down lower than a prime symbol should be, and then a second prime symbol at about the correct size and at about the right distance up from the baseline.

\setupbodyfont[pagella]

\starttext

\unit{2 arcminute} \unit{2 arcsecond}

\blank

2\utfchar{0x2032} 2\utfchar{0x2033}

\blank

2′ 2″

\stoptext

Wolfgang,

thanks very much for that example.

However, while it does show me how to get the glyph I am looking for, I am left wondering whether there is any way to do it without switching my font from the default. (And whether \inch is broken, or whether there is an implicit assumption about font characteristics when using that macro.)

I hate to go to the well too often, but would you care to comment specifically about \inch and the default font?

(If there is some document whose contents would enlighten me about this, I'd be happy to get a pointer to it.)

This is a problem for the math team. The default font "Latin Modern" fakes the symbol with primes but the output with LMTX is wrong here (old MkIV has the correct symbol) as can be seen below. \starttext % Latin Modern uses \def\inch{\mathematics{\prime\prime}} 2\m{\prime\prime} % 2\m{^\doubleprime} \stoptext Wolfgang

Hi, On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 12:20 AM Jim wrote:

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 23:36 (+0100), Wolfgang Schuster wrote:

...

Jim schrieb am 11.11.2024 um 22:49:

...

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 21:30 (+0100), Wolfgang Schuster wrote:

...

...

...

Jim schrieb am 11.11.2024 um 19:34:

...

Hi,

I would expect (*cough*)

\starttext 2\inch \stoptext

to output something like

2"

with some appropriate typographic symbols following the 2. Instead, I get a 2 with a large prime symbol down lower than a prime symbol should be, and then a second prime symbol at about the correct size and at about the right distance up from the baseline.

...

...

...

\setupbodyfont[pagella]

...

...

...

\starttext

...

...

...

\unit{2 arcminute} \unit{2 arcsecond}

...

...

...

\blank

...

...

...

2\utfchar{0x2032} 2\utfchar{0x2033}

...

...

...

\blank

...

...

...

2′ 2″

...

...

...

\stoptext

...

...

Wolfgang,

...

...

thanks very much for that example.

...

...

However, while it does show me how to get the glyph I am looking for, I am left wondering whether there is any way to do it without switching my font from the default. (And whether \inch is broken, or whether there is an implicit assumption about font characteristics when using that macro.)

...

...

I hate to go to the well too often, but would you care to comment specifically about \inch and the default font?

...

...

(If there is some document whose contents would enlighten me about this, I'd be happy to get a pointer to it.)

...

This is a problem for the math team.

...

The default font "Latin Modern" fakes the symbol with primes but the output with LMTX is wrong here (old MkIV has the correct symbol) as can be seen below.

...

\starttext

...

% Latin Modern uses \def\inch{\mathematics{\prime\prime}}

...

2\m{\prime\prime}

...

% 2\m{^\doubleprime}

...

\stoptext

Thanks for confirming that there is a problem.

Is it safe to assume that this thread will get the attention of the math team, so that they will put the issue on their To-Do list? If not, I will cheerfully file a bug report (at least if/when I find out where such a report should be sent).

Jim

I will talk to Hans about it. The funny thing is that \m {f\prime\prime} works as expected. So, it is puting primes "on nothing" that needs to be considered. It seems to work in (many) other fonts, so, we'll have to look at modern and what is special there. /Mikael

On 11/12/2024 7:52 AM, Mikael Sundqvist wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 12:20 AM Jim wrote:

...

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 23:36 (+0100), Wolfgang Schuster wrote:

...

Jim schrieb am 11.11.2024 um 22:49:

...

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 21:30 (+0100), Wolfgang Schuster wrote:

...

...

...

Jim schrieb am 11.11.2024 um 19:34:

...

Hi,

I would expect (*cough*)

\starttext 2\inch \stoptext

to output something like

2"

with some appropriate typographic symbols following the 2. Instead, I get a 2 with a large prime symbol down lower than a prime symbol should be, and then a second prime symbol at about the correct size and at about the right distance up from the baseline.

...

...

...

\setupbodyfont[pagella]

...

...

...

\starttext

...

...

...

\unit{2 arcminute} \unit{2 arcsecond}

...

...

...

\blank

...

...

...

2\utfchar{0x2032} 2\utfchar{0x2033}

...

...

...

\blank

...

...

...

2′ 2″

...

...

...

\stoptext

...

...

Wolfgang,

...

...

thanks very much for that example.

...

...

However, while it does show me how to get the glyph I am looking for, I am left wondering whether there is any way to do it without switching my font from the default. (And whether \inch is broken, or whether there is an implicit assumption about font characteristics when using that macro.)

...

...

I hate to go to the well too often, but would you care to comment specifically about \inch and the default font?

...

...

(If there is some document whose contents would enlighten me about this, I'd be happy to get a pointer to it.)

...

This is a problem for the math team.

...

The default font "Latin Modern" fakes the symbol with primes but the output with LMTX is wrong here (old MkIV has the correct symbol) as can be seen below.

...

\starttext

...

% Latin Modern uses \def\inch{\mathematics{\prime\prime}}

...

2\m{\prime\prime}

...

% 2\m{^\doubleprime}

...

\stoptext

Thanks for confirming that there is a problem.

Is it safe to assume that this thread will get the attention of the math team, so that they will put the issue on their To-Do list? If not, I will cheerfully file a bug report (at least if/when I find out where such a report should be sent).

Jim

I will talk to Hans about it. The funny thing is that \m {f\prime\prime} works as expected. So, it is puting primes "on nothing" that needs to be considered. It seems to work in (many) other

Are inches still used? Anyway, I suppose no mathematician will put a prime on nothing.

fonts, so, we'll have to look at modern and what is special there.

Does this work ? \permanent\protected\def\inch {\iffontchar\font`″″\else \mathematics {\mathsurround\zeropoint \mathatom\mathunspacedcode {\strut}″}% \fi} Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

On 11/13/2024 11:03 AM, Marco Patzer wrote:

On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:30:15 +0100 Wolfgang Schuster wrote:

...

\unit{2 arcsecond}

Arcseconds might print the correct glyph, but would be semantically wrong. I believe the correct approach would be:

\unit{2 inch}

The question then remains how to configure \unit{2 inch} to produce (depending on the requirements):

2 in or 2"

After 25 hours of discussion and 18 attempts the math team (whoever that is) has decided that this is good enough: \permanent\protected\def\fakeminute {\dontleavehmode \begingroup \doifelseitalic {\scratchwidth\fontcharwd\font\singlequoteasciicode \hpack \s!to 1.2\scratchwidth \bgroup \glyphslant\plustwohundred \glyph \s!xoffset -0.6\scratchwidth\singlequoteasciicode \egroup}% {\scratchwidth\fontcharwd\font\singlequoteasciicode \hpack \s!to 1.1\scratchwidth \bgroup \glyphslant\plusfivehundred \glyph \s!xoffset -\scratchwidth\singlequoteasciicode \egroup}% \endgroup} \permanent\protected\def\fakesecond {\dontleavehmode \begingroup \doifelseitalic {\scratchwidth\fontcharwd\font\singlequoteasciicode \hpack \s!to 1.7\scratchwidth \bgroup \glyphslant\plustwohundred \glyph \s!xoffset -0.6\scratchwidth\singlequoteasciicode \glyph \s!xoffset -1.1\scratchwidth\singlequoteasciicode \egroup}% {\scratchwidth\fontcharwd\font\singlequoteasciicode \hpack \s!to 1.6\scratchwidth \bgroup \glyphslant\plusfivehundred \glyph \s!xoffset -\scratchwidth\singlequoteasciicode \glyph \s!xoffset -1.5\scratchwidth\singlequoteasciicode \egroup}% \endgroup} \permanent\protected\def\minute{\iffontchar\font\textminute\textminute\else\fakeminute\fi} \permanent\protected\def\second{\iffontchar\font\textsecond\textsecond\else\fakesecond\fi} \aliased\let\inch\second ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 19:35 (+0000), Keith McKay wrote:

In last night's ConTeXt meeting there was a discussion on the use of vertical or slanted double primes for inches. The general consensus was that slanted should be used.

 I had a look in my copy of The Elements of Typographic Style version 3.0 by Richard Bringhurst and he says (page 307]:

"Double Prime. An abbreviation for inches (1" =2.54 cm) and for seconds of arc (360" = 1 degree). Not to be confused with quotation marks, the double acute, nor with dumb quotes. Prime and double prime are rarely found on text fonts. See also prime. [U+2033]"

Similarly for prime he says (page 316):

"Prime. An abbreviation for feet (1' = 12") and for minutes of arc (60' = 1 degree). Singe and double primes should not be confused with apostrophes, dumb quotes or genuine quotation marks, though in some faces (frakturs especially) these glyphs may all have a similar shape and a pleasant slope. See also apostrophes, double prime, dumb quotes and quotation marks. [U+2032]"

Hope this clarifies things.

At the meeting I said I was going to look around and get back. Mea culpa for letting Keith beat me to it. I guess he deserves another glass of his Macallan 30 year old single malt scotch. Aside from references to The Elements of Typographic Style (as quoted by Keith above), I found various sites which claim that the inch symbol is prime marks: -> https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/data-center-software/how-to-type-the-inc... -> https://www.itprotoday.com/microsoft-windows/how-to-type-the-inch-symbol- (essentially the same article as above) -> https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Punctuation/faq01... -> https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/46055/typesetting-with-inch-symbols-... (see keme1's claim about 1/2 way down) -> https://community.adobe.com/t5/indesign-discussions/typing-symbol-for-quot-i... See "Correct answer by FivePicaPica" -> https://webdesignledger.com/common-typography-mistakes-apostrophes-versus-qu... This one says to use straight, not curly quotes, but is silent on the issue of whether the quote is slanted (thus a prime): -> https://www.nobledesktop.com/typography-rules These ones calls them prime, but just say they are straight: -> https://practicaltypography.com/foot-and-inch-marks.html -> https://typographyforlawyers.com/foot-and-inch-marks.html Amusingly, this seems to be a plagiarism of the one above. Or maybe vice versa. This one says it shows the correct glyphs, but the glyphs shown are straight up and down: -> https://www.myfonts.com/pages/fontscom-learning-fontology-level-3-signs-and-... I don't recognize any of those (with the possible exception of the Chicago manual of style) as definitive opinions. But I will say that each and every time I discussed the issue with Hermann Zaph, he said that inch and foot marks are straight lines with a slant. I found nothing at all about what to do when setting italic text. It makes sense to me to slant them a bit more, but that is just a gut feeling. I think that is likely everything I will have to say on this topic. No doubt that makes people happy. :-) Jim