[NTG-context] Fwd: Re: New beta 2010-09-22 and xits fonts
khaledhosny at eglug.org
Sun Sep 26 13:26:28 CEST 2010
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.
Arabic localiser and member of Arabeyes.org team
Free font developer
More information about the ntg-context