Re: [XeTeX] tabular in footnote
On 08.12.2011 05:59, Daniel Greenhoe wrote:
2011/12/8 Zdenek Wagner:
No, I do not agree. I can only agree that the LaTeX user
documentatioin is incomplete. ...
Without knowledge of the
modes you cannot understand why the table behaves differently in the
footnote. It is documented in the TeXbook.
Then if that is the current state of the platform, as a LaTeX/XeLaTeX
user it is not reasonable for me to make the demands on the system
such as I originally sought (e.g. keeping text completely within the
text area); that is, absolute precision is beyond the reach of one
who only codes at the LaTeX/XeLaTeX level, and is only within the
reach of one who codes at the TeX level.
Yes. It's not (Xe)LaTeX's purpose. It's (Xe)TeX's purpose.
But when using (Xe)LaTeX, I don't want to care about different modes.
(Xe)LaTeX should “understand” the structure, I give to text, the
different formatting options, I give to the structures, and should tell
TeX, how to accomplish these tasks.
[Because (Xe)LaTeX is only software working on hardware, which can only
tell wheter a specific electric quantum (voltage, current, charge) is 0
or not (1), it can only work with structures and formatting options that
it's programmers has translated into 0 and 1.]
Which means, only the structures, formatting options and their
interactions, which are precomposed by LaTeX or composed by the author
(via \newcommand, \newenvironment, etc.) are available.
Unfortunately, the interaction "tabulars in footnotes" was not
specifically designed, so it's interaction is definded by more general
approaches, which happen to fail.
This is not a complaint, it is only an observation. I actually have a
copy of the TeX Book, I just need to open it. ^___^
Thank you for the clarification,
Dan
2011/12/8 Zdenek Wagner:
2011/12/8 Daniel Greenhoe:
Hello Heiko,
...
In my mind (and maybe in my mind only) if I code something (e.g. a
tabular in a footnote) in accordance with documented syntax and then
the result of that code violates a parameter (e.g. a lower text area
boundary) defined in the same documentation, then that by definition
is a bug. Secondly, if a 32 line section of code is required to
prevent my correctly coded (as defined by documented syntax) code from
violating such a parameter, then such a violation is by definition a
bug and the 32 lines of additional code is by definition a "patch".
No, I do not agree. I can only agree that the LaTeX user
documentatioin is incomplete. Consider the expression "my text". You
would certainly be disapointed if the word "text" were verticaly
aligned so that its baseline matched with the bottom of "y". That's
why boxes have height and depth and are aligned to baselines, not to
bottom. The truth is that the documentation of tabular is incomplete.
It does not say that it has zero width and the whole table extends
below baseline. Thus in your original sample file you aske LaTeX to
put the table below the baseline and LaTeX did exactly what you asked
for. Incomplete documentation is unfortunately a feature of LaTeX.
Normal users do not know that \vspace is expanded to \vskip in the
vertical mode but to \vadjust{...} in the horizontal mode and the
starred variant is esentially \vglue. I am afraid that the LaTeX
documentation does not even mention the 5 modes so that the vertical
and horizontal modes may be strange for you. Without knowledge of the
modes you cannot understand why the table behaves differently in the
footnote. It is documented in the TeXbook.
Having said that, let me make these additional comments:
1. I am embarrassed by my own lack of knowledge with respect to TeX coding.
2. I realize that I take a lot from this email list but contribute
nothing or next to nothing
3. I very much appreciate all the help that I have and do receive
from this mailing list
4. I know that beggars can't be choosers.
5. TeX and it's derivatives has to be one of the greatest
developments of all time --- like unto the Gutenberg Press --- many
many thanks to everyone who has and continues to work so hard to
develop it.
Dan
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Heiko Oberdiek
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 06:30:39AM +0800, Daniel Greenhoe wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Heiko Oberdiek
wrote:
You have to compile twice at least.
I compiled at least 8 times using "xelatex Heiko.tex". I still get the
same error: the text extends below the text area (see attachment). You
don't get this result on your system?
And I had written:
| The following example addresses calculates the shift to align
| the baseline of the footnote line with the first line of
| the tabular. No time for looking at the problem with the overfull \vbox.
I have seen two problems with your example and one of them solved,
the other remained unsolved. No more, no less.
Taking more time, I see now, that the overfull \vbox is caused
by something different: The header is set to zero (see options
for geometry), but the page
Re: [XeTeX] tabular in footnote
Or... you could use context. I've never used context, but I hear good
things about it.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 22:59, Daniel Greenhoe wrote:
> 2011/12/8 Zdenek Wagner :
>> No, I do not agree. I can only agree that the LaTeX user
>> documentatioin is incomplete. ...
>> Without knowledge of the
>> modes you cannot understand why the table behaves differently in the
>> footnote. It is documented in the TeXbook.
>
> Then if that is the current state of the platform, as a LaTeX/XeLaTeX
> user it is not reasonable for me to make the demands on the system
> such as I originally sought (e.g. keeping text completely within the
> text area); that is, absolute precision is beyond the reach of one
> who only codes at the LaTeX/XeLaTeX level, and is only within the
> reach of one who codes at the TeX level.
>
> This is not a complaint, it is only an observation. I actually have a
> copy of the TeX Book, I just need to open it. ^___^
>
> Thank you for the clarification,
> Dan
>
>
> 2011/12/8 Zdenek Wagner :
>> 2011/12/8 Daniel Greenhoe :
>>> Hello Heiko,
>>> ...
>>> In my mind (and maybe in my mind only) if I code something (e.g. a
>>> tabular in a footnote) in accordance with documented syntax and then
>>> the result of that code violates a parameter (e.g. a lower text area
>>> boundary) defined in the same documentation, then that by definition
>>> is a bug. Secondly, if a 32 line section of code is required to
>>> prevent my correctly coded (as defined by documented syntax) code from
>>> violating such a parameter, then such a violation is by definition a
>>> bug and the 32 lines of additional code is by definition a "patch".
>>>
>> No, I do not agree. I can only agree that the LaTeX user
>> documentatioin is incomplete. Consider the expression "my text". You
>> would certainly be disapointed if the word "text" were verticaly
>> aligned so that its baseline matched with the bottom of "y". That's
>> why boxes have height and depth and are aligned to baselines, not to
>> bottom. The truth is that the documentation of tabular is incomplete.
>> It does not say that it has zero width and the whole table extends
>> below baseline. Thus in your original sample file you aske LaTeX to
>> put the table below the baseline and LaTeX did exactly what you asked
>> for. Incomplete documentation is unfortunately a feature of LaTeX.
>> Normal users do not know that \vspace is expanded to \vskip in the
>> vertical mode but to \vadjust{...} in the horizontal mode and the
>> starred variant is esentially \vglue. I am afraid that the LaTeX
>> documentation does not even mention the 5 modes so that the vertical
>> and horizontal modes may be strange for you. Without knowledge of the
>> modes you cannot understand why the table behaves differently in the
>> footnote. It is documented in the TeXbook.
>>
>>> Having said that, let me make these additional comments:
>>> 1. I am embarrassed by my own lack of knowledge with respect to TeX coding.
>>> 2. I realize that I take a lot from this email list but contribute
>>> nothing or next to nothing
>>> 3. I very much appreciate all the help that I have and do receive
>>> from this mailing list
>>> 4. I know that beggars can't be choosers.
>>> 5. TeX and it's derivatives has to be one of the greatest
>>> developments of all time --- like unto the Gutenberg Press --- many
>>> many thanks to everyone who has and continues to work so hard to
>>> develop it.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Heiko Oberdiek
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 06:30:39AM +0800, Daniel Greenhoe wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Heiko Oberdiek
> wrote:
> > You have to compile twice at least.
>
> I compiled at least 8 times using "xelatex Heiko.tex". I still get the
> same error: the text extends below the text area (see attachment). You
> don't get this result on your system?
And I had written:
| The following example addresses calculates the shift to align
| the baseline of the footnote line with the first line of
| the tabular. No time for looking at the problem with the overfull \vbox.
I have seen two problems with your example and one of them solved,
the other remained unsolved. No more, no less.
Taking more time, I see now, that the overfull \vbox is caused
by something different: The header is set to zero (see options
for geometry), but the page number is printed causing the
overfull \vbox. Changing the options of geometry or \pagestyle{empty}
solves the problem.
The exceeding part of the second footnote text is correct behaviour:
TeX tries to align the top and bottom lines of a page in order to
get the baselines at the same position:
* At the top vertical space is added up to \topskip unless
the height of the first element is larger than \topskip.
* At the bottom the bottom element might have a depth up to
\maxdepth. The defa
Re: [XeTeX] tabular in footnote
2011/12/8 Zdenek Wagner :
> No, I do not agree. I can only agree that the LaTeX user
> documentatioin is incomplete. ...
> Without knowledge of the
> modes you cannot understand why the table behaves differently in the
> footnote. It is documented in the TeXbook.
Then if that is the current state of the platform, as a LaTeX/XeLaTeX
user it is not reasonable for me to make the demands on the system
such as I originally sought (e.g. keeping text completely within the
text area); that is, absolute precision is beyond the reach of one
who only codes at the LaTeX/XeLaTeX level, and is only within the
reach of one who codes at the TeX level.
This is not a complaint, it is only an observation. I actually have a
copy of the TeX Book, I just need to open it. ^___^
Thank you for the clarification,
Dan
2011/12/8 Zdenek Wagner :
> 2011/12/8 Daniel Greenhoe :
>> Hello Heiko,
>> ...
>> In my mind (and maybe in my mind only) if I code something (e.g. a
>> tabular in a footnote) in accordance with documented syntax and then
>> the result of that code violates a parameter (e.g. a lower text area
>> boundary) defined in the same documentation, then that by definition
>> is a bug. Secondly, if a 32 line section of code is required to
>> prevent my correctly coded (as defined by documented syntax) code from
>> violating such a parameter, then such a violation is by definition a
>> bug and the 32 lines of additional code is by definition a "patch".
>>
> No, I do not agree. I can only agree that the LaTeX user
> documentatioin is incomplete. Consider the expression "my text". You
> would certainly be disapointed if the word "text" were verticaly
> aligned so that its baseline matched with the bottom of "y". That's
> why boxes have height and depth and are aligned to baselines, not to
> bottom. The truth is that the documentation of tabular is incomplete.
> It does not say that it has zero width and the whole table extends
> below baseline. Thus in your original sample file you aske LaTeX to
> put the table below the baseline and LaTeX did exactly what you asked
> for. Incomplete documentation is unfortunately a feature of LaTeX.
> Normal users do not know that \vspace is expanded to \vskip in the
> vertical mode but to \vadjust{...} in the horizontal mode and the
> starred variant is esentially \vglue. I am afraid that the LaTeX
> documentation does not even mention the 5 modes so that the vertical
> and horizontal modes may be strange for you. Without knowledge of the
> modes you cannot understand why the table behaves differently in the
> footnote. It is documented in the TeXbook.
>
>> Having said that, let me make these additional comments:
>> 1. I am embarrassed by my own lack of knowledge with respect to TeX coding.
>> 2. I realize that I take a lot from this email list but contribute
>> nothing or next to nothing
>> 3. I very much appreciate all the help that I have and do receive
>> from this mailing list
>> 4. I know that beggars can't be choosers.
>> 5. TeX and it's derivatives has to be one of the greatest
>> developments of all time --- like unto the Gutenberg Press --- many
>> many thanks to everyone who has and continues to work so hard to
>> develop it.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Heiko Oberdiek
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 06:30:39AM +0800, Daniel Greenhoe wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Heiko Oberdiek
wrote:
> You have to compile twice at least.
I compiled at least 8 times using "xelatex Heiko.tex". I still get the
same error: the text extends below the text area (see attachment). You
don't get this result on your system?
>>>
>>> And I had written:
>>>
>>> | The following example addresses calculates the shift to align
>>> | the baseline of the footnote line with the first line of
>>> | the tabular. No time for looking at the problem with the overfull \vbox.
>>>
>>> I have seen two problems with your example and one of them solved,
>>> the other remained unsolved. No more, no less.
>>>
>>> Taking more time, I see now, that the overfull \vbox is caused
>>> by something different: The header is set to zero (see options
>>> for geometry), but the page number is printed causing the
>>> overfull \vbox. Changing the options of geometry or \pagestyle{empty}
>>> solves the problem.
>>>
>>> The exceeding part of the second footnote text is correct behaviour:
>>> TeX tries to align the top and bottom lines of a page in order to
>>> get the baselines at the same position:
>>> * At the top vertical space is added up to \topskip unless
>>> the height of the first element is larger than \topskip.
>>> * At the bottom the bottom element might have a depth up to
>>> \maxdepth. The default for \maxdepth with \documentclass[12pt]{book}
>>> is .5\topskip = 8pt. \maxdepth=0pt doesn't allow the bottom element
>>> to exceed the textarea. Aligning the last line of the tabular with the
>>> bottom of the textarea is much more tricky.
>>>
>>>
Re: [XeTeX] tabular in footnote
2011/12/8 Daniel Greenhoe :
> Hello Heiko,
> ...
> In my mind (and maybe in my mind only) if I code something (e.g. a
> tabular in a footnote) in accordance with documented syntax and then
> the result of that code violates a parameter (e.g. a lower text area
> boundary) defined in the same documentation, then that by definition
> is a bug. Secondly, if a 32 line section of code is required to
> prevent my correctly coded (as defined by documented syntax) code from
> violating such a parameter, then such a violation is by definition a
> bug and the 32 lines of additional code is by definition a "patch".
>
No, I do not agree. I can only agree that the LaTeX user
documentatioin is incomplete. Consider the expression "my text". You
would certainly be disapointed if the word "text" were verticaly
aligned so that its baseline matched with the bottom of "y". That's
why boxes have height and depth and are aligned to baselines, not to
bottom. The truth is that the documentation of tabular is incomplete.
It does not say that it has zero width and the whole table extends
below baseline. Thus in your original sample file you aske LaTeX to
put the table below the baseline and LaTeX did exactly what you asked
for. Incomplete documentation is unfortunately a feature of LaTeX.
Normal users do not know that \vspace is expanded to \vskip in the
vertical mode but to \vadjust{...} in the horizontal mode and the
starred variant is esentially \vglue. I am afraid that the LaTeX
documentation does not even mention the 5 modes so that the vertical
and horizontal modes may be strange for you. Without knowledge of the
modes you cannot understand why the table behaves differently in the
footnote. It is documented in the TeXbook.
> Having said that, let me make these additional comments:
> 1. I am embarrassed by my own lack of knowledge with respect to TeX coding.
> 2. I realize that I take a lot from this email list but contribute
> nothing or next to nothing
> 3. I very much appreciate all the help that I have and do receive
> from this mailing list
> 4. I know that beggars can't be choosers.
> 5. TeX and it's derivatives has to be one of the greatest
> developments of all time --- like unto the Gutenberg Press --- many
> many thanks to everyone who has and continues to work so hard to
> develop it.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Heiko Oberdiek
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 06:30:39AM +0800, Daniel Greenhoe wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Heiko Oberdiek
>>> wrote:
>>> > You have to compile twice at least.
>>>
>>> I compiled at least 8 times using "xelatex Heiko.tex". I still get the
>>> same error: the text extends below the text area (see attachment). You
>>> don't get this result on your system?
>>
>> And I had written:
>>
>> | The following example addresses calculates the shift to align
>> | the baseline of the footnote line with the first line of
>> | the tabular. No time for looking at the problem with the overfull \vbox.
>>
>> I have seen two problems with your example and one of them solved,
>> the other remained unsolved. No more, no less.
>>
>> Taking more time, I see now, that the overfull \vbox is caused
>> by something different: The header is set to zero (see options
>> for geometry), but the page number is printed causing the
>> overfull \vbox. Changing the options of geometry or \pagestyle{empty}
>> solves the problem.
>>
>> The exceeding part of the second footnote text is correct behaviour:
>> TeX tries to align the top and bottom lines of a page in order to
>> get the baselines at the same position:
>> * At the top vertical space is added up to \topskip unless
>> the height of the first element is larger than \topskip.
>> * At the bottom the bottom element might have a depth up to
>> \maxdepth. The default for \maxdepth with \documentclass[12pt]{book}
>> is .5\topskip = 8pt. \maxdepth=0pt doesn't allow the bottom element
>> to exceed the textarea. Aligning the last line of the tabular with the
>> bottom of the textarea is much more tricky.
>>
>> The following assumes that the last line of the tabular contains
>> normal text without large depths:
>>
>> \documentclass[12pt]{book}
>> \usepackage{array}
>> \usepackage[
>> a4paper,noheadfoot,nomarginpar,margin=20mm,showframe
>> ]{geometry}
>> \usepackage{zref-savepos}
>> \pagestyle{empty}
>>
>> %\maxdepth=0pt
>>
>> \makeatletter
>> \newsavebox\tl@box
>> \newcount\c@tlcount
>> \setcounter{tlcount}{0}
>> \def\thetlcount{\the\c@tlcount}
>> \newenvironment*{tltabular}[1]{%
>> \stepcounter{tlcount}%
>> \begin{lrbox}{\tl@box}%
>> \begin{tabular}[t]{|#1|}%
>> \hline
>> \zref@savepos
>> \zref@labelbyprops{tl@b\thetlcount}{posy}%
>> \xdef\g@dp@arstrutbox{%
>> \the\dimexpr\dp\@arstrutbox+\arrayrulewidth
>> }%
>> \ignorespaces
>> }{%
>> \hline
>> \end{tabular}%
>> \end{lrbox}%
>> \zref@refused{tl@a\thetlcount}%
>> \zref@refused{tl@b\thetlcount}%
>> \dimen@=\dimexpr
>> \zposy{tl@a\thetlcount}sp-\zposy{tl@b\t
Re: [XeTeX] tabular in footnote
Hello Heiko,
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Heiko Oberdiek
wrote:
> I have seen two problems with your example and one of them solved,
> the other remained unsolved. No more, no less.
Yes, that misunderstanding was my fault.
> Taking more time, I see now, that the overfull \vbox is caused
> by something different: The header is set to zero (see options
> for geometry), but the page number is printed causing the
> overfull \vbox. Changing the options of geometry or \pagestyle{empty}
> solves the problem.
A very nice solution --- thank you very much
> to exceed the textarea. Aligning the last line of the tabular with the
> bottom of the textarea is much more tricky.
> The following assumes that the last line of the tabular contains
> normal text without large depths:
Thank you for this solution as well. I have tested it and it did work.
I am sorry for my slow response in acknowledging it. I have worked for
it seems several hours trying to integrate it into a larger project.
The integration did not go so smoothly. In particular, when I tried to
use it in a real project, the spacing between footnotes increased. I
finally traced the conflict to the directive "\VerbatimFootnotes" from
the "fancyvrb" (fancy verbatim) package. I reproduced the problem in
the code you provided and will attach it to this email. You can take a
look if you happen to have time. But if you don't have time, I do want
to say that I greatly appreciate all the time you have already spent
in helping me with this problem.
Even if you do choose to take a look at the attached files, I don't
think you need to spend time on this problem. I have observed that
LaTeX apparently often has this bottom overflow problem, not just in
the case of footnotes. For example, when using AMS's {align*}
environment, the index "n" in \sum_n can also extend outside the lower
text boundary. Even in the patch that you so skillfully crafted, the
letter "g" still can violate the lower boundary (maybe letters with
descenders in general have this problem)? But I suppose that could be
remedied as well. Even if this problem was fixed, there is still the
problem that the patch does not work well when there is only one entry
in the tltabular environment (too much vertical spacing).
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Heiko Oberdiek
wrote:
> Please, be more precise. What do you consider as bug?
In my mind (and maybe in my mind only) if I code something (e.g. a
tabular in a footnote) in accordance with documented syntax and then
the result of that code violates a parameter (e.g. a lower text area
boundary) defined in the same documentation, then that by definition
is a bug. Secondly, if a 32 line section of code is required to
prevent my correctly coded (as defined by documented syntax) code from
violating such a parameter, then such a violation is by definition a
bug and the 32 lines of additional code is by definition a "patch".
Having said that, let me make these additional comments:
1. I am embarrassed by my own lack of knowledge with respect to TeX coding.
2. I realize that I take a lot from this email list but contribute
nothing or next to nothing
3. I very much appreciate all the help that I have and do receive
from this mailing list
4. I know that beggars can't be choosers.
5. TeX and it's derivatives has to be one of the greatest
developments of all time --- like unto the Gutenberg Press --- many
many thanks to everyone who has and continues to work so hard to
develop it.
Dan
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Heiko Oberdiek
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 06:30:39AM +0800, Daniel Greenhoe wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Heiko Oberdiek
>> wrote:
>> > You have to compile twice at least.
>>
>> I compiled at least 8 times using "xelatex Heiko.tex". I still get the
>> same error: the text extends below the text area (see attachment). You
>> don't get this result on your system?
>
> And I had written:
>
> | The following example addresses calculates the shift to align
> | the baseline of the footnote line with the first line of
> | the tabular. No time for looking at the problem with the overfull \vbox.
>
> I have seen two problems with your example and one of them solved,
> the other remained unsolved. No more, no less.
>
> Taking more time, I see now, that the overfull \vbox is caused
> by something different: The header is set to zero (see options
> for geometry), but the page number is printed causing the
> overfull \vbox. Changing the options of geometry or \pagestyle{empty}
> solves the problem.
>
> The exceeding part of the second footnote text is correct behaviour:
> TeX tries to align the top and bottom lines of a page in order to
> get the baselines at the same position:
> * At the top vertical space is added up to \topskip unless
> the height of the first element is larger than \topskip.
> * At the bottom the bottom element might have a depth up to
> \maxdepth. The default for \maxdepth with \documentclass[12pt]{book}
>
Re: [XeTeX] (Xe)TeX Live after update: Upright font found, but not italic - Huh?
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 01:40, Keith J. Schultz wrote:> Anyway, after that he loads babel! I am almost sure first load font spec, polyglossia and then babel is> likely to cause some weird side effects. Yeah, it's really easy to miss package conflicts when using LyX. I actually started using LaTeX through LyX (and this was years ago, before I'd even heard of XeTeX), and because it didn't support the packages I was using, almost everything I did was in ERT (evil red text). So I ended up just editing the tex files by hand. Which was fine, until someone else edited it using LyX and added other packages... I forget what xltxtra loads, but I think it loads fontspec, xunicode at least, so those two package calls can also be deleted. -Andy -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
