LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Will Robertson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 21 May 2014 22:11:32 +0930
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
On 21 May 2014, at 8:35 pm, David Carlisle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 21/05/2014 11:49, Will Robertson wrote:
>> 
>> On 20 May 2014, at 11:34 pm, Ulrike Fischer 
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> So in my opinion the current \mathbf-etc setup in unicode-math
>>> actually did the right thing and improved the standard
>>> \math-commands.
>>> 
>> Im replying out of order, but Im still inclined to agree with you here :)
>> The big problem was not handling \mathit properly.
>> 
> 
> or at least the problem is more apparent for italic as the differences between
> math and text setting are more glaring in that case:-)

Well, I think from the foregoing discussing (correct me if Im wrong on this!) that we all roughly agree that a suitable OpenType math font with bold glyphs in plane 1 will still be a sensible default for \mathbf, albeit with an obvious override possible (both as a package option and at math-font-load time) when a text bold font is desired instead for multi-letter identifiers.

\mathit is just wrong as it currently stands.


>> It has been possible for a long time to select a text font for a math alphabet in unicode-math, but this feature was probably not documented very well.
>> If you try to select a particular unicode range such as \mathbfup and a font simply doesnt have it (well, it only checks A I think), the remapping doesnt occur and you get the ascii-range glyphs:
>> 
> 
> Yes, although I think what's needed is an explicit way to do this rather than relying on heuristics

Agreed for sure.


> for example while answering a tex.sx question I wanted to use rsfs (or euler) for script in addition or instead of
> the script in stix because well just because that's what the question asked for, and it seemed  that the easiest way
> currently is to use \mathup{\euler{A B C to disable the mathcode mapping which works but looks a bit odd.

Most certainly, this is not what we should be asking users to do.
This (arbitrary \mathXYZ alphabet support) was always in the works but time got away from me.

Cheers,
Will

ATOM RSS1 RSS2