Hello The bigl, bigr ans so on are really BIG (huge even) when used with lucida. I think that math-lbr is guilty : it says ****************************************** \def\LBRbig {\@@dobig{8.20}} \def\LBRBig {\@@dobig{10.80}} \def\LBRbigg {\@@dobig{13.42}} \def\LBRBigg {\@@dobig{16.03}} \def\LBRbiggg{\@@dobig{17.72}} \def\LBRBiggg{\@@dobig{21.25}} ****************************************** Shouldn't it says ****************************************** \def\LBRbig {\@@dobig{0.920}} \def\LBRBig {\@@dobig{1.080}} \def\LBRbigg {\@@dobig{1.342}} \def\LBRBigg {\@@dobig{1.603}} \def\LBRbiggg{\@@dobig{1.772}} \def\LBRBiggg{\@@dobig{2.125}} ****************************************** ? There is a strange behavior : if I put \def\LBRbig {\@@dobig{0.930}} big is bigger than Big. How is this possible ?
Are you sure? see the first line of the attachment.
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 5:58 AM, Eric DÉTREZ
Hello
The bigl, bigr ans so on are really BIG (huge even) when used with lucida.
I think that math-lbr is guilty : it says ****************************************** \def\LBRbig {\@@dobig{8.20}} \def\LBRBig {\@@dobig{10.80}} \def\LBRbigg {\@@dobig{13.42}} \def\LBRBigg {\@@dobig{16.03}} \def\LBRbiggg{\@@dobig{17.72}} \def\LBRBiggg{\@@dobig{21.25}} ****************************************** Shouldn't it says ****************************************** \def\LBRbig {\@@dobig{0.920}} \def\LBRBig {\@@dobig{1.080}} \def\LBRbigg {\@@dobig{1.342}} \def\LBRBigg {\@@dobig{1.603}} \def\LBRbiggg{\@@dobig{1.772}} \def\LBRBiggg{\@@dobig{2.125}} ****************************************** ?
There is a strange behavior : if I put \def\LBRbig {\@@dobig{0.930}} big is bigger than Big. How is this possible ?
___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Eric DÉTREZ
Le 29 août 08 à 04:51, Yue Wang a écrit :
Are you sure? see the first line of the attachment.
It seems that the text you sent is writen with CM fonts. The problem is only with Lucida fonts.
This is *not* Latin/Computer Modern. Wolfgang
Le 29 août 08 à 08:59, Wolfgang Schuster a écrit :
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Eric DÉTREZ
wrote: Le 29 août 08 à 04:51, Yue Wang a écrit :
Are you sure? see the first line of the attachment.
It seems that the text you sent is writen with CM fonts. The problem is only with Lucida fonts.
This is *not* Latin/Computer Modern.
Allright, I'm not a font expert. Here is what I get when I disable \def\LBRbig {\@@dobig{0.920}} \def\LBRBig {\@@dobig{1.080}} \def\LBRbigg {\@@dobig{1.342}} \def\LBRBigg {\@@dobig{1.603}} \def\LBRbiggg{\@@dobig{1.772}} \def\LBRBiggg{\@@dobig{2.125}} :
Allright, I'm not a font expert. Here is what I get when I disable \def\LBRbig {\@@dobig{0.920}} \def\LBRBig {\@@dobig{1.080}} \def\LBRbigg {\@@dobig{1.342}} \def\LBRBigg {\@@dobig{1.603}} \def\LBRbiggg{\@@dobig{1.772}} \def\LBRBiggg{\@@dobig{2.125}} :
Oh, My God~ Make sure your font installation are right. Which TFM do you use? Please follow http://www.ntg.nl/pipermail/ntg-context/2008/033517.html. big braces are working fine on my documents.
Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Eric DÉTREZ
wrote: Le 29 août 08 à 04:51, Yue Wang a écrit :
Are you sure? see the first line of the attachment. It seems that the text you sent is writen with CM fonts. The problem is only with Lucida fonts.
This is *not* Latin/Computer Modern.
The jpg from Yue Wang looks like it is using Times. Best wishes, Taco
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Taco Hoekwater
Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Eric DÉTREZ
wrote: Le 29 août 08 à 04:51, Yue Wang a écrit :
Are you sure? see the first line of the attachment. It seems that the text you sent is writen with CM fonts. The problem is only with Lucida fonts.
This is *not* Latin/Computer Modern.
The jpg from Yue Wang looks like it is using Times.
Definitely not, Times is different. Wolfgang
OK, I will re sent the pdf tonight.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Wolfgang Schuster
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Taco Hoekwater
wrote: Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Eric DÉTREZ
wrote: Le 29 août 08 à 04:51, Yue Wang a écrit :
Are you sure? see the first line of the attachment. It seems that the text you sent is writen with CM fonts. The problem is only with Lucida fonts.
This is *not* Latin/Computer Modern.
The jpg from Yue Wang looks like it is using Times.
Definitely not, Times is different.
Wolfgang ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
Yue Wang wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Yue Wang
wrote: OK, I will re sent the pdf tonight.
s/sent/send/g
Thank you. Now I no longer understand why Eric got wrong output :(
btw, Taco, the attachment restriction (40k) is too stirct...
I do not think we can enlarge the value by much, this mailing list has a whole lot of people on it, and some of them are on slow connections. But maybe just a bit more will be ok. Hans? Best wishes, Taco
Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Yue Wang wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Yue Wang
wrote: OK, I will re sent the pdf tonight.
s/sent/send/g
Thank you. Now I no longer understand why Eric got wrong output :(
btw, Taco, the attachment restriction (40k) is too stirct...
I do not think we can enlarge the value by much, this mailing list has a whole lot of people on it, and some of them are on slow connections. But maybe just a bit more will be ok. Hans?
64k ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
There is one possible condition:
He failed to install the math part of the lucida font (either pfbs or tfms) .
and then to some unknown reasons....
ConTeXt switch to the Latin Modern Font.
But it still use value like 8.20 (defined in math-lbr) instead of 0.85
(defined in plain TeX, core-mat and math-tex)
Then the braces are gigantic big...
please have a check if this is the cause -_-
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Taco Hoekwater
Yue Wang wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Yue Wang
wrote: OK, I will re sent the pdf tonight.
s/sent/send/g
Thank you. Now I no longer understand why Eric got wrong output :(
btw, Taco, the attachment restriction (40k) is too stirct...
I do not think we can enlarge the value by much, this mailing list has a whole lot of people on it, and some of them are on slow connections. But maybe just a bit more will be ok. Hans?
Best wishes, Taco ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
This is of course Lucida Expert fonts.
(The quality of the image is not so good, because I cannot upload
large attachments. that's it.)
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Eric DÉTREZ
Le 29 août 08 à 04:51, Yue Wang a écrit :
Are you sure? see the first line of the attachment.
It seems that the text you sent is writen with CM fonts. The problem is only with Lucida fonts.
___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
Hi, Yue Wang wrote:
This is of course Lucida Expert fonts. (The quality of the image is not so good, because I cannot upload large attachments. that's it.)
What does your typescript look like? Lucida Expert may not be the same as the Lucida Bright fonts from TUG (previously YandY). Best wishes, Taco
oh, I made a another mistake. I mean __complete__ set (not basic set)
font from TUG:)
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Taco Hoekwater
Hi,
Yue Wang wrote:
This is of course Lucida Expert fonts. (The quality of the image is not so good, because I cannot upload large attachments. that's it.)
What does your typescript look like? Lucida Expert may not be the same as the Lucida Bright fonts from TUG (previously YandY).
Best wishes, Taco ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 5:58 AM, Eric DÉTREZ
Hello
The bigl, bigr ans so on are really BIG (huge even) when used with lucida.
I think that math-lbr is guilty : it says ****************************************** \def\LBRbig {\@@dobig{8.20}} \def\LBRBig {\@@dobig{10.80}} \def\LBRbigg {\@@dobig{13.42}} \def\LBRBigg {\@@dobig{16.03}} \def\LBRbiggg{\@@dobig{17.72}} \def\LBRBiggg{\@@dobig{21.25}} ****************************************** Shouldn't it says ****************************************** \def\LBRbig {\@@dobig{0.920}} \def\LBRBig {\@@dobig{1.080}} \def\LBRbigg {\@@dobig{1.342}} \def\LBRBigg {\@@dobig{1.603}} \def\LBRbiggg{\@@dobig{1.772}} \def\LBRBiggg{\@@dobig{2.125}} ****************************************** ?
How do you get these variables? the symbols in lucida math are different. you can also refer to ftp://ftp.comp.hkbu.edu.hk/pub/TeX/CTAN/macros/latex/contrib/psnfssx/lucidabr/lucidabr.pdf. page 9, line 263-273
There is a strange behavior : if I put \def\LBRbig {\@@dobig{0.930}} big is bigger than Big. How is this possible ?
___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
Le 29 août 08 à 12:00, Yue Wang a écrit :
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 5:58 AM, Eric DÉTREZ
wrote: Hello
The bigl, bigr ans so on are really BIG (huge even) when used with lucida.
I think that math-lbr is guilty : it says ****************************************** \def\LBRbig {\@@dobig{8.20}} \def\LBRBig {\@@dobig{10.80}} \def\LBRbigg {\@@dobig{13.42}} \def\LBRBigg {\@@dobig{16.03}} \def\LBRbiggg{\@@dobig{17.72}} \def\LBRBiggg{\@@dobig{21.25}} ****************************************** Shouldn't it says ****************************************** \def\LBRbig {\@@dobig{0.920}} \def\LBRBig {\@@dobig{1.080}} \def\LBRbigg {\@@dobig{1.342}} \def\LBRBigg {\@@dobig{1.603}} \def\LBRbiggg{\@@dobig{1.772}} \def\LBRBiggg{\@@dobig{2.125}} ****************************************** ?
How do you get these variables? the symbols in lucida math are different.
I just divided the size by 10 with a modification for big (doesn't understand why, see the second part of my question). They look like the sizes in math-tex ****************************************** \def\PLAINbig {\@@dobig{0.85}} \def\PLAINBig {\@@dobig{1.15}} \def\PLAINbigg{\@@dobig{1.45}} \def\PLAINBigg{\@@dobig{1.75}} ******************************************
you can also refer to ftp://ftp.comp.hkbu.edu.hk/pub/TeX/CTAN/macros/latex/contrib/psnfssx/lucidabr/lucidabr.pdf . page 9, line 263-273
Indeed the original sizes are the same. But the lucidabr package uses 8.20 pt and context uses a multiple of fontsize : ****************************************** \def\@@dobig#1#2% {{\hbox{$\left#2\vbox\!!to#1\bodyfontsize{}\right.\n@space$}}} ****************************************** Does anybody understand why big with \def\LBRbig {\@@dobig{0.930}} is bigger than Big with \def\LBRBig {\@@dobig{1.080}} ?
There is a strange behavior : if I put \def\LBRbig {\@@dobig{0.930}} big is bigger than Big. How is this possible ?
participants (5)
-
Eric DÉTREZ
-
Hans Hagen
-
Taco Hoekwater
-
Wolfgang Schuster
-
Yue Wang