Re: [NTG-context] Cambria: integral sign has wrong size

2011-07-01 Thread Taco Hoekwater
On 06/30/2011 10:46 AM, Julian Becker wrote: Hello everybody! I tried doing some math typesetting with Cambria, but somehow the integral sign comes out somewhat smaller than it should be. Running the following in the latest beta produces the attached pdf. Does anybody have an idea about

Re: [NTG-context] Cambria: integral sign has wrong size

2011-07-01 Thread Philipp Stephani
Am 20:59, schrieb Julian Becker: Hello everybody! I tried doing some math typesetting with Cambria, but somehow the integral sign comes out somewhat smaller than it should be. Running the following in the latest beta produces the attached pdf. Does anybody have an idea about what's going

Re: [NTG-context] Cambria: integral sign has wrong size

2011-07-01 Thread Julian Becker
In this case, is there a quick workaround? I tried something like redefining \int using \def\int{\getglyph{CambriaMath}{\charF05C2}\intlimits} This gives the desired result in displaystyle, but is incompatible with scriptstyle math. Is there a way to adapt this workaround to account for this in

Re: [NTG-context] Cambria: integral sign has wrong size

2011-07-01 Thread Khaled Hosny
Try setting \Umathoperatorsize\displaystyle=2em or so until you find a suitable value. On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 09:25:27AM +0200, Julian Becker wrote: In this case, is there a quick workaround? I tried something like redefining \ int usingĀ 

Re: [NTG-context] Cambria: integral sign has wrong size

2011-07-01 Thread Julian Becker
Thanks Khaled, this works like a charm! Best wishes, Julian 2011/7/1 Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org Try setting \Umathoperatorsize\displaystyle=2em or so until you find a suitable value. On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 09:25:27AM +0200, Julian Becker wrote: In this case, is there a quick

Re: [NTG-context] Cambria: integral sign has wrong size

2011-07-01 Thread Hans Hagen
On 30-6-2011 10:46, Julian Becker wrote: Hello everybody! I tried doing some math typesetting with Cambria, but somehow the integral sign comes out somewhat smaller than it should be. Running the following in the latest beta produces the attached pdf. Does anybody have an idea about what's