Hi Max, Yes, I have also been thinking about this problem, which is quite tricky. There are various difficulties:
- If we want things to print nicely, then we need a vectorial solution. So if we do pixel magic, it must still be vectorial pixel magic. - It is problematic if to fatten our fonts using the background color, since the background might be a pattern or we might painting on top of something else. - What should underlining do on more complex markup (a fraction, a text with a subscript or superscript, etc.)? Or do we simply sacrifice some of the things that we might want? Best wishes, --Joris On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 10:08:21PM +0100, Massimiliano Gubinelli wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm not very fond of the \underline style in TeXmacs. Even some browsers > (e.g. Safari) do better, in particular put the line nearer to the glyphs and > take into account descenders (e.g. "g" or "p"). > > TeX has similar problems and there are solutions around, e.g. here: > > https://alexwlchan.net/2017/10/latex-underlines/ > > Also some CSS trickery can do something for most of the browsers: > > https://css-tricks.com/styling-underlines-web/ > > I've experimented with similar solutions for TeXmacs. Using \superpose, > \datom and \thicken one can indeed create the wanted underline and it works > also on the generated PDF file, however \datom does not interact properly > with \superpose and one cannot have multiline underlines... > > Is there a way to make this work? > > I attach a file with my experiments and tentative implementation. (the colors > are used to debug) > > Best > Max > > > > _______________________________________________ > Texmacs-dev mailing list > Texmacs-dev@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev _______________________________________________ Texmacs-dev mailing list Texmacs-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev