[NTG-context] Learning how to use \setupbtxrendering

Rik Kabel context at rik.users.panix.com
Sun Feb 18 21:06:52 CET 2018


On 2018-02-18 14:33, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
>
>> Rik Kabel <mailto:context at rik.users.panix.com>
>> 18. Februar 2018 um 20:22
>> On 2018-02-18 12:07, Alan Braslau wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 11:58:40 -0500
>>> Rik Kabel<context at rik.users.panix.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Indeed, it is hard to imagine a BibTeX file devoid of such markup.
>>>> How would one indicate the (reverse) emphasis of a quoted book title,
>>>> as in /The Cambridge Companion to /Ulysses, except by indicating the
>>>> emphasis of "Ulysses" and letting ConTeXt reverse it when emphasizing
>>>> the complete title? (ยง4.21 of the APA2013 spec requires this.)
>>> title={The Cambridge Companion to {\em Ulysses}},
>>
>> I would think that the proper form would be
>>
>>     title={The Cambridge Companion to {\it Ulysses}}
>>
>> since \em could be, and is by default, slanted, but the standard here 
>> calls for italic.
>>
> 1. How many fonts provides a italic *and* slanted style.
>
> 2. You change for the style for \em.
>>
>> That brings up the question of when one should use \em, \emph, and 
>> \emphasized, all of which appear in font-emp.mkvi. The wiki and other 
>> documentation provides no guidance.
>>
> \starttext
>
> normal {\em emphasized}
>
> {\it normal {\em emphasized}}
>
> \stoptext
>
> Wolfgang
>
It does not matter how many fonts support both (LM does, and Libertine). 
One feature of a BibTeX file is reusability for many documents, and when 
the file is created you do not know what will be the default emphasis of 
the document. By explicitly coding \it, you are assured that the italic 
face will be attempted. If it is not available, there should be an error 
message, and you can then have a discussion with your editor. The claim 
of the new bibliography subsystem is that it will implement APA 
strictly, and that calls for italic.

I understand as well that \em allows switching (reverse emphasis as 
noted above). It also provides some italic correction. I am asking about 
the appropriate use of the two variations of \em: \emph (which is a 
grouped command \em) and \emphasized (defined as 
\bgroup\em\let\nexttoken). I understand and make use of grouped commands 
-- they are largely syntactic sugar, but I like sugar. I am less certain 
of the purpose of \emphasized, how it works, and why it might be useful. 
I do not recall seeing a command definition with a bgroup and no egroup 
before.

-- 
Rik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ntg.nl/pipermail/ntg-context/attachments/20180218/4da609c6/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ntg-context mailing list