[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Changing math layout / microtypography
From: |
Oliver Bandel |
Subject: |
Re: Changing math layout / microtypography |
Date: |
Mon, 04 Apr 2016 23:48:06 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Horde Application Framework 5 |
Hi,
Zitat von Matěj Cepl <address@hidden> (Sat, 02 Apr 2016 11:01:05 +0200)
On 2016-04-02, 00:10 GMT, Oliver Bandel wrote:
So, I want to try lout again, thinking that complex stuff can
be typeset in much less time than using LaTeX. The drawback
in typography I want to limit by adapting some
microtypographical enhancements to the way, lout doe sthe
typesetting.
I think that the limitation is that lout is very much tighten to
PostScript.
Should be no problem.
It just needs the right Postscript-commands to create the output, and
anything is fine.
But Postscript is an interpreted language, and so it takes much time
for a document to become rendered.
And with many additional commands for microtypographic enhancements,
the postscript code might become bloated and the rendering too slow.
There pdf will be much better, I guess.
So, as long as you can express it in PostScript (and
your ps2pdf won't screw up), I believe you can make Lout macro
which will generate the stuff for you.
I would rather express it in lout, which creates the postscript...
Which makes me wonder:
most of the microtypographical extensions to TeX came with
PDFTeX I believe and you still need it or its descendants (e.g.,
XeTeX) to get them. But perhaps I am wrong, and you can do those
microtypographical extensions with PostScript as well, and it
was just a coincidence that it came with PDFTeX.
There were some enhancements in pdfTeX, that TeX does not have.
The problem is not Postscript, but TeX itself.
See here for example:
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/349/what-is-the-practical-difference-between-latex-and-pdflatex
So,,, pdfTeX with a certain package to enhance themicrotypography.
But what I had in mind for Lout (with this thread), was enhancing the
math-formulas.
(If other enhancements wre epossible too, that would be nice too, of course.)
The Integral-Limits look better if they are above and below the
Integral symbol.
Maybe I will find other deficiencies in lout's math-layout,
but this one was just so invasive that I asked it here.
(It even was the reason to subscribe this list to ask it!)
Maybe it would make sense to just create a package of layout
enhancements (maybe hosting it on github or so),
for including it into lout documents...
...with the intention to make lout's math-output look better and close
to TeX's output.
(Or even better?!).
Ciao,
Oliver