?
> >
> > I have not looked into the MP angle operator code, but my suspicion is
> that it is based on some super-clever John Hobby scheme optimized for
> scaled integer calculations.
>
> The scaled version of “angle” is a handwritten approximation in web, not
> using
> a
optimized for scaled
> integer calculations.
The scaled version of “angle” is a handwritten approximation in web, not using
any math library. I really doubt that that code is faster than calling atan2()
on a modern machine, but I’ve kept it in because using a lib might give
slightly
differ
> Am 01.08.2021 um 22:14 schrieb Hans Hagen via ntg-context
> :
>>> Is this a limitation in ConTeXt, or what did I wrong?
>> The handwritten and calligraphic style are limited to upright alternatives.
>> I can only speculate why this is the case but I guess Hans owns
onfigured files are found.
Is this a limitation in ConTeXt, or what did I wrong?
The handwritten and calligraphic style are limited to upright
alternatives. I can only speculate why this is the case but I guess Hans
owns no font families where this is necessary (e.g. Lucida Bright has
onl
Xt, or what did I wrong?
The handwritten and calligraphic style are limited to upright
alternatives. I can only speculate why this is the case but I guess Hans
owns no font families where this is necessary (e.g. Lucida Bright has
only one file for handwriting and calligraphy).
Adding additional
setmathfont [Latin Modern Math]
805 \sethandwritingfont [Latin Modern Roman] % neither handwritten
nor calligraphic are available
806 \setcalligraphicfont[Latin Modern Roman] % for Latin Modern
but I need a default font for them
807
808 \!!donesimplefontstrue
809
810 \stopmodule
811
[\s!features=\s!none]
804 \setmathfont [Latin Modern Math]
805 \sethandwritingfont [Latin Modern Roman] % neither handwritten
nor calligraphic are available
806 \setcalligraphicfont[Latin Modern Roman] % for Latin Modern
but I need a default font for them
807
808 \!!donesimp
v!no,
796\c!expansion=\v!no,
797\c!protrusion=\v!no]
798
799 %D Default fonts
800
801 \setmainfont[Latin Modern Roman]
802 >> \setsansfont[Latin Modern Sans]
803 \setmonofont[Latin Modern Mono][\s!features=\s!none]
804 \setmathfont
; 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
e of inspiration. But I just can't figure out how to use it!
(Otherwise this is good news because gothic hand is my least bad
calligraphy font, so the handwritten copy of the book might be
somewhat representable, although I trust ConTeXt to make the nicely
typeset versions.)
I know that I'
. And such that it can be filled
by handwritten information, using some tablet or
otherwise.
May be it is already possible for a virtual keyboard
on a touchscreen or something like that. A ConTeXt
package for the preparation of the keys of a virtual
keyboard?
It is just an idea, really I have no idea
it could be applied to other
exotic fonts.)
Mojca
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 21:25, Mojca Miklavec
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm using a feature "compose=yes"
>
> \definefontfeature
> [default]
> [liga=yes,kern=yes,tlig=yes,compose=yes]
>
>
Hello,
I'm using a feature "compose=yes"
\definefontfeature
[default]
[liga=yes,kern=yes,tlig=yes,compose=yes]
in a handwritten font to get ccarons (font
SnellRoundhandLTStd-Scr.otf). However the carons are placed way off to
the right due to the nature of handwritten font
o:
>
> [mm][mm]
> [rm,roman,serif,regular][rm]
> [ss,sansserif,sans,support] [ss]
> [tt,teletype,type,mono] [tt]
> [hw,handwritten][hw]
> [cg,calligraphic] [cg]
>
> the reason for that is that for each of those,
][mm]
[rm,roman,serif,regular][rm]
[ss,sansserif,sans,support] [ss]
[tt,teletype,type,mono] [tt]
[hw,handwritten][hw]
[cg,calligraphic] [cg]
the reason for that is that for each of those, there is possibly
also a bold, italic, bolditalic etc. font
ntsynonym[LucidaCal] [name:lucidacalligraphy]
[features=default]
\definefontsynonym[LucidaCal-Italic][name:lucidacalligraphyitalic][features=default]
\stoptypescript
\starttypescript[handwritten][lucida]
%\setups[font:fallback:serif]
\definefontsynonym[LucidaHandwrit
port
> sansserif
> mono
> type
> teletype
> handwritten
> cmr
> mm
> rm
>
> But none of them I find very pleasing. (And handwritten looks
> different as the name s
Am 10.09.2010 um 10:11 schrieb Cecil Westerhof:
> Is there a list of the standard fonts to use? I found:
>
> [...]
>
> But none of them I find very pleasing. (And handwritten looks
> different as the name suggest.) How can I find out which fonts I can
> use?
With y
Is there a list of the standard fonts to use? I found:
serif
regular
roman
sans
support
sansserif
mono
type
teletype
handwritten
cmr
mm
rm
But none of them I find very pleasing. (And handwritten looks
different as the name suggest.) How can I find out which fonts I can
On Jul 21, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Oliver Buerschaper wrote:
> Does that mean you can make handwritten annotations with, say, a graphics
> tablet?
Yes, so long as one isn't expecting to be able to convert the handwritten
annotation into recognized text.
Another option is printing a
>> How do you "enable" your PDFs so that you can add handwritten notes?
>
> in Adobe Acrobat Professional:
>
> Comments | Enable for commenting and analysis in Adobe Reader...
>
> Then when the file is opened in Adobe Reader open up the appropriate tool
On Jul 20, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Oliver Buerschaper wrote:
> How do you "enable" your PDFs so that you can add handwritten notes?
in Adobe Acrobat Professional:
Comments | Enable for commenting and analysis in Adobe Reader...
Then when the file is opened in Adobe Reader open up th
or me and is very expressive
> (I'll often make .pdfs enabled for commenting on my Mac at work, then mark
> them up on my Tablet PC).
How do you "enable" your PDFs so that you can add handwritten notes?
Oliver
I think I more or less got the idea of what is possible. But let me
describe my project. Maybe you might come up with a better solution.
I'm going to typeset a diary written and drawn by an illustrator and
graphic designer 70 years ago. What is unique, it consists of
handwritten pages which
n what the stuff in the
second column is. If it's intended to be merely a natural-language
description of what the command in the first column does, I think it
could be clarified as follows:
Command / Switch to style/ Internal style name
\rm / serif / r
about this.
>> not really, since we also have hw (handwritten) and cg (calligraphy)
>
> I know rm, ss, tt, mm, hw and cg but you write in the font manual it is
> also possible to define own commands, is this possible for the short
> command and if yes how.
>
>> anyhow, somet
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Hans Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
>
> > AFAIK they are the command to switch from one style to another one,
> > e.g. \rm, \ss
> > but I wondered myself about this.
>
> not really, since
Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
> AFAIK they are the command to switch from one style to another one,
> e.g. \rm, \ss
> but I wondered myself about this.
not really, since we also have hw (handwritten) and cg (calligraphy)
anyhow, sometimes i do map the ss to a serif or rm to sans; depend
Am 2007-11-26 um 01:19 schrieb Maurí cio:
> When I use \setupbodyfont[handwritten] or
> \setupbodyfont[calligraphic], I get fonts
> which do not look like handwritten or
> calligraphic. Other options give consistent
> results (sans, type, serif etc.). What
> should I check in
Hi,
When I use \setupbodyfont[handwritten] or
\setupbodyfont[calligraphic], I get fonts
which do not look like handwritten or
calligraphic. Other options give consistent
results (sans, type, serif etc.). What
should I check in order to get those to
work? I use a standard Ubuntu 7.10
installation
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:09:50 -0700, Alex K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's an example:
>
> http://www.colorado.edu/Publications/styleguide/symbols.html
>
> I've seen these printed (not handwritten) in grammar guides, so I was
> wondering if formatting
Here's an example:
http://www.colorado.edu/Publications/styleguide/symbols.html
I've seen these printed (not handwritten) in grammar guides, so I was wondering
if formatting them with TeX was possible at all.
Thanks,
Alex
- Original Message
From: Idris Samawi Hamid <[EM
n, e.g. old Arabic lead-press
books and in handwritten books. TeX should be capable of this, though it
remains to be seen whether this should be implemented at the engine level
(a la pdfetex) or at the macro level.
Best
Idris
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: ht
xotic" style like
\sc\it -- what do you think?
there is \hw and \cg for handwritten and calligraphy, and you can define
more if you want (peek into font-ini.tex); also, in some type-* files you
will find casuals; in principle you can create your own names (we do that
for thing
xotic" style like
\sc\it -- what do you think?
there is \hw and \cg for handwritten and calligraphy, and you can define
more if you want (peek into font-ini.tex); also, in some type-* files you
will find casuals; in principle you can create your own names (we do that
for thing
35 matches
Mail list logo
