Thanks for your response Hans.
On 25/07/2017 00:12, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 7/24/2017 11:41 PM, Sebastian L. wrote:
Yes it helps, thanks; it explains why there was so little response to
this. ;)
After some search I found regular style pictures of it. I was sure,
that it was italic as standard, because that's what "modern"
suggests: compability for current regulations (i.e. regular
constants, italic variables) as well as an attractive style overall.
But since Neo Euler seems to have no italic style, it is of no use
for academic purposes, like in my case.
originally "euler" is a math companion font to "concrete" and it's not
trivial to make en euler with all text styles (maybe some day the tex
gyre project will give it a try) .. btw, the same is true for sans
fonts: at some point one runs out of distinctive features
btw, it also fits with pagella (see type-imp-euler)
I don't want to argue with you Hans, as I know that you have better
things to do. But for clarification: for a non-power TeX / CTX user this
is information, that one usually doesn't get, as it makes deep interest
in fonts creation necessary. On the other hand I don't expect you to be
the one who teaches users about fonts, relationships or even the motives
behind their creation. Thanks for your explanation though.
The story, to add to the subject of the mail, in case somebody
searches the archive for this, is that I wasn't able to find out is
how to change the math font only, as i like the standard font with
\setupbodyfont[sans] as global setup but not the style of
(non-modern) Euler.
I tried
\definefontfamily [mainface] [mm] [Xits Math]
most users who mess with fonts either use the selectfont mechanism or
peek into the type-imp files to see how to set up a combination
I see. Well I just used search on the CTX wiki to find information about
selectfont, but neither selectfont nor \selectfont gives me any result.
If it's something TeX related, then I have to say that I didn't start to
use CTX to get into TeX before. Anyways this is where it starts. This
time it's type-imp, other topics will make it necessary to search other
source files and then it starts over... This is something for you, the
other coders or users who want to tweak CTX or its components, but a
standard user will never do this, as he usually doesn't know where to
look for info.
but this changes the whole typeface; not what I want.
So the trick is to define the standard font for the rest of the font
variations. The standard font can be found out with \showbodyfont. At
least that's what it suggests. But it gives you "modern-design" as
font. When you use this within \definefontfamily then it gives you
nothing, because the real id of the standard font is "modern". So to
change the math font only and keep the main font standard, you have
to use this command group (just in case somebody looks for it):
\definefontfamily [mainface] [rm] [Modern] % = serif
\definefontfamily [mainface] [ss] [Modern] % = sans
\definefontfamily [mainface] [tt] [Modern] % = mono (teletype)
\definefontfamily [mainface] [mm] [Xits Math] [rscale=1.03] % = math
But as this seems to be so trivial, that few people care, I really
have to wonder why people who test CTX criticise the lack of
documentation. We (especially who haven't been through LaTeX or even
TeX) seem to be a minority.
In what sense?
In the sense that we (or let's even say just me) don't know where to
look for information. I mean how many software do you have, where you go
through its source files to understand how it does basic tasks? For me
it's only CTX and as a consequence thereof Textadept, but for me that's
already /too much/. So IMHO this must not be the future... Except for
those who can't stop loving open source software that is usually made
for a specific topic in the first place.
Anyway, there is quite some documentation (also about fonts) available
(and the context distribution documentation section has examples).
There you are right. There is so much documentation that it's
overwhelming. For instance documentation on fonts goes over several wiki
pages. Suffice it to say you have to know what you are looking for, and
not where. And the more you start searching, the more wiki pages you
have to go through. A better approach might be to merge several pages
that belong to a single chapter to one single wiki page. But that's just
my opinion. Another example: I have found different links to manuals
like Hoekwater's or Hagen's (on the wiki). But on several pages you get
links to several versions of the manual, for instance I found one link
to Hoekwater's 2003 version and to 2011 or 2013 version (I don't
remember the exact dates as I deleted them both). Some time later I read
that there is an online manual somewhere in the download area, that has
to be built first. But there seems to be no manual for Windows users how
to do this. I.e. one has to get some basic Linux info or similar, just
to build a manual. I don't find this to be user friendly at all. That
being said, the US army has a code name for something like that: Charlie
Foxtrot (abbreviation for cluster fuck, i.e. chaos). So indeed there is
plenty of information, but most of it is written from the POV of a long
time user or a programmer. There clearly lacks documentation from the
POV of a simple user who has never used TeX or its kind.
I mean sure, it could be only me who has a hard time understanding CTX,
but since I have found out many things about CTX without asking anybody
but reading information that is already there, the fact that I found out
how to change only the math font after approx two years somehow shows
me, that it's not only some lack of my will to read all the pages
several times to understand CTX but also the lack of passion in the
documentation.
Still I won't give up. So far I am a happy CTX user.
Cheers, Sebastian
Cheers and thanks, S.
On 23/07/2017 21:22, Pablo Rodriguez wrote:
On 07/22/2017 03:16 AM, Sebastian L. wrote:
Hi, I have trouble with Neo Euler font after playing around with those
options.
[...]
I am pretty sure that before I started mixing the fonts in one single
document, Neo Euler was italic.
Does anybody have a clue what might have went wrong?
Hi Sebastian,
as far as I remember, Neo Euler is a regular font only
(https://github.com/khaledhosny/euler-otf).
Euler is an italic font and it might have the other regular, bold, bold
italic typefaces (I don’t know).
I hope it helps,
Pablo
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an
entry to the Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl /
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________