From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/14768 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Giuseppe Bilotta Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re[2]: Not seeing the wood because of so many trees Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:20:35 +0100 Sender: ntg-context-admin@ntg.nl Message-ID: <1835728886.20040218162035@iol.it> References: Reply-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1077211067 16850 80.91.224.253 (19 Feb 2004 17:17:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:17:47 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-admin@ntg.nl Thu Feb 19 18:17:37 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from ref.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.13] helo=ref.ntg.nl) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Atrnt-0007QB-00 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:17:37 +0100 Original-Received: from ref.ntg.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ref.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4FC10B24; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:15:46 +0100 (MET) Original-Received: from mbox.dmi.unict.it (mbox.dmi.unict.it [151.97.252.66]) by ref.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83AE010AFC for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:14:04 +0100 (MET) Original-Received: from oblomov.dipmat.unict.it (oblomov.dipmat.unict.it [151.97.252.27]) by mbox.dmi.unict.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB3F1C6EC7 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:34:18 +0100 (CET) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Original-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl In-Reply-To: Errors-To: ntg-context-admin@ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:14768 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:14768 Tuesday, February 17, 2004 Thomas A.Schmitz wrote: > Sorry for going back to an older thread, but I don't think the question > was answered properly. Alexander Klink wanted to know how to typeset > "{" and "}". Suggestions were "\type|{| and \type|}|" or "$\{$ and > $\}$". Neither of which is satisfactory, because it will typeset them > either in typewriter or in math font. We had a discussion about similar > questions a while ago. I still think we should have "\{" and "\}" for > this kind of thing. As long as this isn't available, I see no better > solution than "\getglyph{Serif}{123}" and > "\getglyph{Serif}{125}" vel. > sim. For those of us working in the humanities, these curly braces are > sometimes necessary (e.g., in critical editions), and having them in > typewriter or math fonts isn't acceptable. So may I continue my rally > for \{ etc.? Sorry for the delay. \textbraceleft and \textbraceright should work ok if encodings are set up correctly. -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta