LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L Archives

LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  February 2001

LATEX-L February 2001

Subject:

Re: insufficent NFSS model (?)

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:08:19 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (148 lines)

Roozbeh,

 > Javier explained the idea somehow. I'm going into complete explanation
 > here. Please ask for clarification if there are ambiguities.

thanks, I think it has helped, but as you can imagine there are a number of
questions.

very first one, let's for the moment forget about the high-level NFSS commands
like \textbf and so on and just concentrate on the low-level interface which
can be perhaps sumarised as

 fonts are classified according to four different axises

NFSS calls them family series shape (and implicitly sizes) but to some extend
at least "series" and "shape" are abstract names.

first question:

 assuming you give adequate meaning to these names, are the fonts used in your
 typography adequately modelled by four axises?

from what i understand the answer is probably yes.

==================

the series attribute for Latin fonts actually encodes a combination of width
and weight; I did choose this for the model because independent changes seemed
seldom at least not within a document (i'm talking only about text fonts here
not math!)

second question:

 i do understand that you have some characteristics in the fonts that are
suitably modelled as a series though you say you consider outline a part of
it. is that roughly correct?

actually although outlines are mentioned in the LaTeX Companion (and probably
in fntguide) as a value for the shape attribute, I think it is something that
actually far better belongs to the series if one sticks within 4 axises

====================

 > In Persian, we usually do not have the three classic families. In Iran,

well, Latin typography doesn't has these three either, i'd say. it is true
that we have some understanding what is meant by a typewriter font but this is
essentially

 - by its use as computer input output
 - by its being monospaced

categories for font families is more like 6-9 depending on school, but
existance of serifs is clearly an outstanding attribute for a latin based
font. However, mixture of \sf and \rm in running text is rather uncommon
(unless for very specific items ---the LaTeX commands \textsf and \textrm are
really a historical accident due to what is there in plain TeX).

i'm not saying that there aren't designs mixing serifed and nonserifed fonts,
eg in headings or running heads or other design items.



====================


 > Because of this lack of option, outline and shaded-outline shapes are used
 > much more in technical books, sometimes together with slanted and
 > backslanted. The model that is used in available Persian software,
 > modeled from how designers think, is something like this:
 >
 > family weight shape
 > ------ ------ -----
 > normal medium upright
 > italics bold slanted
 > some others outline backslanted
 > shaded-outline

you say that italics are considered by designers a family. okay, but you don't
have all the shape attributes for such a family, do you? ie upright, slanted,
and backslanted?

anyway, if you just consider Persian text as such (not multilingual documents
mixing it with latin, say) then i don't see why the NFSS model would not
serve.

On the high-level commands you may need something like \itfamily and disable
\sffamily and something like \emph would select a family rather than a shape
etc but the underlying model would not be affected, would it?

perhaps it would be worth thinking about how the high-level interface could be
made more adaptable to different languages.

====================

 > This the Persian model only. Then you need Latin. For each of the styles
 > that also may contain Latin text, they should use an equivalent fonts
 > that goes with it. There are some difficulties here also, one of them

you are right, multilingual documents are different. I think the first
question that needs to be asked is:

 Do we have a predominant language A with infrequent embeddings from a
different language/script B? In that case I guess one should try to map the
meanings of the high-level commands as best as one can using those from the
dominant language, eg

Something like "bf" for latin scripts could perhaps be translated to mean
"outline" in persian context or it could mean "bold nonextended".

the idea being that one tries to make the best of

 \textbf{Some English text with a few \langfragment{persian}{Persian words} in
         the middle}

so that this blends as best as possible (clearly a designer issue).

This should work both ways, ie if you have different high-level commands in
languages like Persian and you have a multilingual document with dominant
language Persian one should map the "persian-high-levels".

More complicated perhaps are situations where the different scripts are really
equivalent in use. do we then map all such high-level commands, do we use them
all, do we just use one set, nevertheless?

no good answers here i fear

=======================

back to the model of "classical" families

 > In the absense of that model, designers choose some families (for
 > a mathematical book, I've seen from as few as one, to as many as six or
 > seven), and specify that this heading or that caption should come out as
 > in this family and that shape and size.

but this is exactly the way design works here as well. okay, article.cls makes
all headings simply by using the body font in a bolden version (and since the
default is CM fonts in bx) but classes with a real design would typically
specify individual fonts in certain weight, shape and size for the individual
elements of the design.

what is perhaps missing in LaTeX are different levels of emphasis, ie we have
\emph{...} or {\em ...} but for any other textual emphasis people have to use
\textbf or \textsf or the like rather than being offered and abstraction which
could then be filled with life by the designer.

frank

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
July 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
March 2002
December 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Universität Heidelberg | Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager