Re: [NTG-context] Choosing STIX stylistic sets

[Hans Åberg]

> On 16 Apr 2017, at 19:15, Hans Hagen  wrote:
> 
> On 4/16/2017 6:01 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
>> 
>> So far I have only used \setupbodyfont[xits,10pt], but found no info about 
>> how to specifically selecting fonts for the different modes or ranges.
> 
> \setupbodyfont[termes]
> \setupbodyfont[pagella]
> \setupbodyfont[bonum]

But that sets it for all, text and math, right?

>>> just use a text font .. why does texinfo needs a math font? only for math i 
>>> assume
>> 
>> Right, and writing the Unicode math characters in the UTF-8 source file, in 
>> part because they will be also used as such in the source code of a program. 
>> One can otherwise embed formulas using traditional TeX syntax.
> 
> it's a bit more complex in the tex world: users are accustomed to seeing the 
> a in $a$ becoming a math italic a and $\bf a$ getting a bold a .. both are in 
> the unicode math alphabet so a macro package has to support both these switch 
> driven inputs and direct unicode math (also because cut and paste from a pdf 
> should work)

We discussed that by option \setupmathematics[lcgreek=normal, default=normal], 
which makes sure math characters are untranslated. I have used that for some 
time now, and that works fine.

> (the way macro packages implement that can be fundamental different)
> 
> (there is a font project under way that will provide monospaced math 
> characters for editing)

We discussed that, too. ASCII computer code that has been written in monospace 
using space to produce column looks weird in a variable width font, but 
otherwise, it is just a style.

> 
 Also, in script/calligraphic, STIX2 seems to have is the other way around 
 relative stix-two-math.lfg: setting the feature 'ss01' yields the 
 traditional English script style, whereas the default is the AMS 
 calligraphic style.
>>> 
>>> that's also a design issue
>> 
>> Not anymore, perhaps, as some mathematicians seem to think of them as 
>> different semantic styles.
> 
> if so, then that will be reflected in unicode alphabets (just make a string 
> case for it)

It has been discussed on the Unicode list. Personally, I think the calligraphic 
style looks wrong. The script style is essentially an English handwritten 
style, also used in Sweden.


___
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://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___

Re: [NTG-context] Choosing STIX stylistic sets

[Hans Hagen]

On 4/16/2017 6:01 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:



On 16 Apr 2017, at 16:37, Hans Hagen  wrote:

On 4/16/2017 3:56 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:



On 15 Apr 2017, at 00:22, Hans Hagen  wrote:

On 4/14/2017 12:42 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:

With the STIX Two fonts [1-2], one can choose say Stylistic Set 8  for 
more upright integrals. How is that done in ConTeXt with XITS?

1. https://sourceforge.net/projects/stixfonts/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIX_Fonts_project#STIX_2.0.0


see stix-two-math.lfg

\setmathfontalternate{whatever}


This is complicated, it seems: The STIX2Math font does not have the text 
support that STIX has, so one might want a virtual font, or set the math font 
independently (I could find any info about that on ConTeXtGarden).


there is no real text support in math fonts ... it's alphabets ... the fact 
that one shares e.g. a textfont in math mode with a regular text font outside 
math is something traditional tex (and more a font design and macro package 
issue that an engine thing)


So far I have only used \setupbodyfont[xits,10pt], but found no info about how 
to specifically selecting fonts for the different modes or ranges.


\setupbodyfont[termes]
\setupbodyfont[pagella]
\setupbodyfont[bonum]

on windows (cambria is the opentype reference fonmt for math):

\setupbodyfont[cambria]

or when you bought lucida ot:

\setupbodyfont[lucidaot]

all have math


just use a text font .. why does texinfo needs a math font? only for math i 
assume


Right, and writing the Unicode math characters in the UTF-8 source file, in 
part because they will be also used as such in the source code of a program. 
One can otherwise embed formulas using traditional TeX syntax.


it's a bit more complex in the tex world: users are accustomed to seeing 
the a in $a$ becoming a math italic a and $\bf a$ getting a bold a .. 
both are in the unicode math alphabet so a macro package has to support 
both these switch driven inputs and direct unicode math (also because 
cut and paste from a pdf should work)


(the way macro packages implement that can be fundamental different)

(there is a font project under way that will provide monospaced math 
characters for editing)



Also, in script/calligraphic, STIX2 seems to have is the other way around 
relative stix-two-math.lfg: setting the feature 'ss01' yields the traditional 
English script style, whereas the default is the AMS calligraphic style.


that's also a design issue


Not anymore, perhaps, as some mathematicians seem to think of them as different 
semantic styles.


if so, then that will be reflected in unicode alphabets (just make a 
string case for it)



On most other features, the STIX2 default seems to what I think of as 
traditional.


personally i'd never use stix for something


I used STIX because it came around, and, also, the AMS has been involved. It 
good there are other fonts, though.


finally came around .. but it's not a pretty font


(one can use texgyre pagella or termes)


What is the advantage of those?


a palatino based font looks imo better than stix

(as open type font they are around a bit longer and we have a bit more 
influence on their development)


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
-
___
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://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___

Re: [NTG-context] Choosing STIX stylistic sets

[Hans Åberg]

> On 16 Apr 2017, at 16:37, Hans Hagen  wrote:
> 
> On 4/16/2017 3:56 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
>> 
>>> On 15 Apr 2017, at 00:22, Hans Hagen  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 4/14/2017 12:42 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
 With the STIX Two fonts [1-2], one can choose say Stylistic Set 8  
 for more upright integrals. How is that done in ConTeXt with XITS?
 
 1. https://sourceforge.net/projects/stixfonts/
 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIX_Fonts_project#STIX_2.0.0
>>> 
>>> see stix-two-math.lfg
>>> 
>>> \setmathfontalternate{whatever}
>> 
>> This is complicated, it seems: The STIX2Math font does not have the text 
>> support that STIX has, so one might want a virtual font, or set the math 
>> font independently (I could find any info about that on ConTeXtGarden).
> 
> there is no real text support in math fonts ... it's alphabets ... the fact 
> that one shares e.g. a textfont in math mode with a regular text font outside 
> math is something traditional tex (and more a font design and macro package 
> issue that an engine thing)

So far I have only used \setupbodyfont[xits,10pt], but found no info about how 
to specifically selecting fonts for the different modes or ranges.

> just use a text font .. why does texinfo needs a math font? only for math i 
> assume

Right, and writing the Unicode math characters in the UTF-8 source file, in 
part because they will be also used as such in the source code of a program. 
One can otherwise embed formulas using traditional TeX syntax.

>> Also, in script/calligraphic, STIX2 seems to have is the other way around 
>> relative stix-two-math.lfg: setting the feature 'ss01' yields the 
>> traditional English script style, whereas the default is the AMS 
>> calligraphic style.
> 
> that's also a design issue

Not anymore, perhaps, as some mathematicians seem to think of them as different 
semantic styles.

>> On most other features, the STIX2 default seems to what I think of as 
>> traditional.
> 
> personally i'd never use stix for something

I used STIX because it came around, and, also, the AMS has been involved. It 
good there are other fonts, though. 

> (one can use texgyre pagella or termes)

What is the advantage of those?


___
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://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___

Re: [NTG-context] Choosing STIX stylistic sets

[Hans Hagen]

On 4/16/2017 3:56 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:



On 15 Apr 2017, at 00:22, Hans Hagen  wrote:

On 4/14/2017 12:42 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:

With the STIX Two fonts [1-2], one can choose say Stylistic Set 8  for 
more upright integrals. How is that done in ConTeXt with XITS?

1. https://sourceforge.net/projects/stixfonts/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIX_Fonts_project#STIX_2.0.0


see stix-two-math.lfg

\setmathfontalternate{whatever}


This is complicated, it seems: The STIX2Math font does not have the text 
support that STIX has, so one might want a virtual font, or set the math font 
independently (I could find any info about that on ConTeXtGarden).


there is no real text support in math fonts ... it's alphabets ... the 
fact that one shares e.g. a textfont in math mode with a regular text 
font outside math is something traditional tex (and more a font design 
and macro package issue that an engine thing)


just use a text font .. why does texinfo needs a math font? only for 
math i assume



Also, in script/calligraphic, STIX2 seems to have is the other way around 
relative stix-two-math.lfg: setting the feature 'ss01' yields the traditional 
English script style, whereas the default is the AMS calligraphic style.


that's also a design issue


On most other features, the STIX2 default seems to what I think of as 
traditional.


personally i'd never use stix for something (one can use texgyre pagella 
or termes)



The feature 'ss07', smaller operators, might be nice to have, but U2205 looks 
strange, as the empty set symbol comes from a Danish ø, so deselecting just 
that one might be of interest.


one more reason for not using stix

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
-
___
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://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___

Re: [NTG-context] Choosing STIX stylistic sets

[Hans Åberg]

> On 15 Apr 2017, at 00:22, Hans Hagen  wrote:
> 
> On 4/14/2017 12:42 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
>> With the STIX Two fonts [1-2], one can choose say Stylistic Set 8  for 
>> more upright integrals. How is that done in ConTeXt with XITS?
>> 
>> 1. https://sourceforge.net/projects/stixfonts/
>> 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIX_Fonts_project#STIX_2.0.0
> 
> see stix-two-math.lfg
> 
> \setmathfontalternate{whatever}

This is complicated, it seems: The STIX2Math font does not have the text 
support that STIX has, so one might want a virtual font, or set the math font 
independently (I could find any info about that on ConTeXtGarden).

Also, in script/calligraphic, STIX2 seems to have is the other way around 
relative stix-two-math.lfg: setting the feature 'ss01' yields the traditional 
English script style, whereas the default is the AMS calligraphic style.

On most other features, the STIX2 default seems to what I think of as 
traditional.

The feature 'ss07', smaller operators, might be nice to have, but U2205 looks 
strange, as the empty set symbol comes from a Danish ø, so deselecting just 
that one might be of interest.


___
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://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___

Re: [NTG-context] Choosing STIX stylistic sets

[Hans Åberg]

> On 15 Apr 2017, at 00:22, Hans Hagen  wrote:
> 
> On 4/14/2017 12:42 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
>> With the STIX Two fonts [1-2], one can choose say Stylistic Set 8  for 
>> more upright integrals. How is that done in ConTeXt with XITS?
>> 
>> 1. https://sourceforge.net/projects/stixfonts/
>> 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIX_Fonts_project#STIX_2.0.0
> 
> see stix-two-math.lfg
> 
> \setmathfontalternate{whatever}

On MacOS, it does not load the fonts: In the example below (also not working 
with 'xits' or 'stix'), I get:
fonts   > typescripts > unknown library 'stix-two-math'
fonts   > preloading latin modern fonts (third stage)
fonts   > 'fallback modern-designsize rm 10pt' is loaded

They are installed as system fonts.

Also, though \nt now seems defined, the limits are still underneath with 
the option 'integral=nolimits'.



%\setupbodyfont[xits,10pt]
%\setupbodyfont[stix,10pt]
\setupbodyfont[stix-two-math,10pt]

%\setupmathematics[integral=nolimits, lcgreek=normal, default=normal, 
stylealternative={upright}]
\setupmathematics[integral=nolimits, lcgreek=normal, default=normal]

\appendtoks
  \catcode`∫=\activecatcode
  \letcharcode `∫ \int
  \catcode`∬=\activecatcode
  \letcharcode `∬ \iint
  \catcode`∭=\activecatcode
  \letcharcode `∭ \iiint
  \catcode`⨌=\activecatcode
  \letcharcode `⨌ \nt
\to \everymathematics


\starttext

\startformula
  ⨌_퐴 푓(푥)\, d푥 = ∫_퐵 ∭_퐶 푓(푡, 풙)⊗g\, d푡 d풙
\stopformula

\startformula
\setmathfontalternate{upright,circled}
  ⨌_퐴 푓(푥)\, d푥 = ∫_퐵 ∭_퐶 푓(푡, 풙)⊗g\, d푡 d풙
\stopformula

\stoptext



___
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://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___

Re: [NTG-context] Choosing STIX stylistic sets

[Hans Hagen]

On 4/14/2017 12:42 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:

With the STIX Two fonts [1-2], one can choose say Stylistic Set 8  for 
more upright integrals. How is that done in ConTeXt with XITS?

1. https://sourceforge.net/projects/stixfonts/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIX_Fonts_project#STIX_2.0.0


see stix-two-math.lfg

\setmathfontalternate{whatever}

-
  Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
  Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
   tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
-
___
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://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___

[NTG-context] Choosing STIX stylistic sets

[Hans Åberg]

With the STIX Two fonts [1-2], one can choose say Stylistic Set 8  for 
more upright integrals. How is that done in ConTeXt with XITS?

1. https://sourceforge.net/projects/stixfonts/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIX_Fonts_project#STIX_2.0.0


___
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://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___