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  October 1999

LATEX-L October 1999

Subject:

A template for author font selection

From:

Lars Hellström <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 6 Oct 1999 19:28:22 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (147 lines)

Here are some thoughts about templates and font selection. Perhaps I
thought about it a bit too long, because the mail got a bit long-winded,
but I hope you'll endure it.

There are several levels of font selection in LaTeX. At the bottom there is
the primitive TeX level, where fonts are specified through TFM file names.
On top of that, there is the NFSS level where fonts are specified using
attributes (encoding, family, series, shape, size, and once NFSS3 is
released case). On top of that, there is what I will call the author level
(since that is the lowest normal authors are expected to go), where fonts
are selected using commands such as \textit, \small, and \bfseries. On top
of that, finally, is the markup level where fonts are indirectly selected
by the markup commands.

The template.dtx file contains a couple of examples of how some template
keys can contain the font selections made by the template, so that in a
sense the markup level to author level mapping of fonts is controlled
through templates. The point I would like to make is that the author level
to NFSS level mapping should perhaps also be controlled through templates;
at least it might solve some problems with the current state of things.

These problems generally stem from that macros that make author level font
selections are usually unaware (i.e., the one who wrote them were, and they
make no attempt to examine) of the actual situation at the lower level, so
one should be prepared to make compromises while mapping the selections to
the NFSS level. In the current setting however, this mapping stays fixed
throughout a document and can only be (responsibly) changed by code which
take complete responsibility for all document fonts. Since there usually
isn't any such code, except in classes that are specially designed for
certain fonts, font implementors have taken the only option they
have---modifying the NFSS to TeX level mapping so that it suits the
standard settings---since that is under each font implementor's control. I
think it's the wrong way to go however, and problems certainly do arise
when a font family has a bx series, but it is the b series which should be
used for normal boldface.

One way to use templates for getting around this is to define a template
for "author fonts", something like

\DeclareTemplateType{noparams}{0}
\DeclareTemplate {noparams}{author-fonts}{0}{
   medium =n [m] \mddefault,
   boldface =n [b] \bfdefault,
   light =n [m] \ltdefault,
   upright =n [n] \urdefault,
   italic =n [it] \itdefault,
   slanted =n [sl] \sldefault,
   smallcaps =n [sc] \scdefault
}{\DoParameterAssignments}

(Or perhaps author-fonts should be a type and the template should be named
default or something. I'm not sure, but it seems odd that all templates
without parameters (i.e., having type noparams in the above setting) should
always be affected by the same \UseCollection commands.)
Now if FD files are allowed to declare instances of this template, one
could use those to specify which values the \XXdefault macros should have
when the current font family is declared by that file. ot1cmr.fd would for
example say

\DeclareInstance{noparams}{OT1cmr}{author-fonts}{boldface=bx}

since it (unlike most font families) has bx as its standard boldface
series. The AvantGarde (pag) family has a weight named "Extra Light" (el)
but no light weight, and has obliques but no italic or smallcaps. Hence
t1pag.fd would say

\DeclareInstance{noparams}{T1pag}{author-fonts}%
   {light=el,italic=sl,smallcaps=n}

And so on. The reason I took m as the default for light above is that I
suspect most families don't have a light series.

Of course, this requires that this template (or an instance of it) is used
each time the family is changed. Hence the definition of \rmfamily should
become something like

   %A (see below about this)
   \IfExistsInstanceTF{noparams}{\f@encoding\rmdefault}%
      {\UseInstance{noparams}{\f@encoding\rmdefault}}%
      {\UseInstance{noparams}{author-fonts}}%
   \fontfamily{\rmdefault}%
   %B (see below about this)
   \selectfont

but I think that is reasonable.

At this point one may think that this turns the power over author to NFSS
level mapping completely over to font implementors, so that class designers
are left without a saying in this, but that is not the case. Everything a
class designer who is creating a class for use with a fixed set of fonts
has to do to resume control over for example what is the standard boldface
series, is to create collection instances for the font families in question
and then \Use that collection throughout the document. A user who tries to
use the specialized class with fonts it wasn't made for will however see
the default settings for those fonts. Hence it works out for the best
either way!

The reasons for the %A and %B in the suggested \rmfamily definition above
do however add a complication. The problem is that when changing from from
one family to another using an author level font selection command, you
expect the author level font selections of series and shape to be
preserved, not the NFSS level selections, and hence one must (i) remember
the author level font selections and (ii) map them anew each time the
family is changed. Supposing that the \XXdefault macro for author level
series and shape are stored in \author@f@series and \author@f@shape
respectively, a command like \bfseries would have to be given the definition

   \fontseries{\bfdefault}\selectfont
   \def\author@f@series{\bfdefault}%

and the %B line above would have to be replaced by

   \fontseries{\author@f@series}%
   \fontshape{\author@f@shape}%

The %A line is because of another technicality. If the author's last font
selection was at the NFSS level then it is more reasonable to expect the
NFSS series or shape to be preserved; this can be done by including

   \expandafter\ifx \author@f@series \f@series \else
      \def\author@f@series{\f@series}%
   \fi
   \expandafter\ifx \author@f@shape \f@shape \else
      \def\author@f@shape{\f@shape}%
   \fi

(I suspect there is some better command for doing these tests somewhere in
the experimental LaTeX3 code) at the %A line above. Finally, one also has
to make sure that the FD file in question is loaded before the
\IfExistsInstanceTF test is made (otherwise the fonts might come out wrong
the first time they are selected). Hence one would also have to do some
kind of

   \EnsureFDFileLoaded{\f@encoding}{\rmdefault}

(where the hypothetical \EnsureFDFileLoaded would be very similar to the
existing \try@load@fontshape macro---just add a group and don't use
\f@encoding and \f@family to pass data) at the end of %A.

A final thought connected to this: I considered having emphasis (default
value it) and it-emphasis (default value n) keys in the author-fonts
template as well, but now it seems more like selecting fonts for
emphasising text is something which belongs in the markup level. In any
case however, LaTeX2e* shouldn't have these shapes hardwired into the
command, as they are in LaTeX2e.

Lars Hellström

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