Old-style figures throughout the document

Old-style figures throughout the document

[varheit]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii", Size: 1814 bytes --]

Hello,

I am experimenting with old-style figures (or text figures, as they are
also called). Basically, I would like every number in my source document
to be typeset in old-style figures (OSF) by default unless stated
otherwise. This means: I want to reverse the mechanism so that I can
explicitly say where NOT to use OSF.

As a work-around I found the following on the list:

\defineconversion[number][\os]
\defineconversion[numbers][\os]

This does not work for plain digits in the text, but it works for
generated numbers like page numbers, and, to some degree, for the
generated numbers of floats. 

\starttext
  \chapter[sample]{Sample}
  \placefigure[here][a]{cap}{test}
  Reference: \in{figure}[a]
  \section[test]{Test}
\stoptext

In this setup, chapter numbers do not use OSF, and the numbers of
figures (as well as references to them) use a mixed form, which
looks rather odd.

I can add

  \setuphead[chapter,section][numberstyle=\os]

which makes heading numbers use OSF, but then again, references like
\in[sample] do not work. Also, the numbering of the section changes
from 1.1 to 1>1 (where > is a right pointing triangle).

To see the results, you can process this:

------------------------ cut here ---------------------
\defineconversion[number][\os]
\defineconversion[numbers][\os]
\setuphead[chapter,section][numberstyle=\os]
\starttext

\chapter[sample]{Sample}

This is chapter \in[sample].
Below is \in{section}[test].

Here is \in{figure}[a] on \at{page}[a]

\placefigure[here][a]{Caption}{FIGURE}

\section[test]{Test}
\stoptext
------------------------ cut here ---------------------


Is there any way, to change the numbering style globally?

Thanks,
Viktor


-- 
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++

10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS  http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail

Re: Old-style figures throughout the document

[Eckhart Guthöhrlein]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 at 13:52:40+0200, varheit@gmx.de wrote:
> Is there any way, to change the numbering style globally?

We just had a discussion about this. Maybe
http://archive.contextgarden.net/thread/20050413.132347.43f37eb6.html
will be of help.

Greetings,
-- 
Eckhart

Re: Old-style figures throughout the document

[Viktor Varheit]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii", Size: 837 bytes --]


> We just had a discussion about this. Maybe
> http://archive.contextgarden.net/thread/20050413.132347.43f37eb6.html
> will be of help.

Thanks, Eckhart. Shame on me, I did not find this thread. I've just
tried the example but it does not work here. I still get ordinary
numbers.

I am using teTeX 3.0, and my ConText is:
ConTeXt  ver: 2005.01.31  fmt: 2005.4.27  int: english  mes: english

Maybe I have to set up anything else?

Viktor

--------------------------------------------------------------------
\usetypescript[adobekb][\defaultencoding]
\usetypescript [modern][\defaultencoding]
\usetypescript [map] [latin-modern-os] [\defaultencoding]
\setupbodyfont[modern]

\starttext 

test 1234 test

\stoptext

-- 
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++

10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS  http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail

Re: Old-style figures throughout the document

[Adam Lindsay]

Viktor Varheit said this at Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:33:12 +0200:

>ConTeXt  ver: 2005.01.31  fmt: 2005.4.27  int: english  mes: english
>
>Maybe I have to set up anything else?

I'm not entirely certain the magic mapfile is in the main release. (Can't
check--on the road currently.)

>\usetypescript[adobekb][\defaultencoding]

This is an unnecessary line.

>\usetypescript [modern][\defaultencoding]
>\usetypescript [map] [latin-modern-os] [\defaultencoding]
>\setupbodyfont[modern]

Okay, this should (once you get it to work with the LM fonts) work, but
only partially to your requirements--the mapfile magic re-encodes all
fonts so all numerals are text figures. In order to get lining figures on
command in every context, it'll take a bunch more typescripts (and a few
fontvariants defined).

For something a little more tractable, we can have a (not very robust)
hack that switches to math mode (and therefore CM, not LM) when you want
the occasional lining figure. I'll leave auto detection of bold vs normal
weight as an exercise for the reader:

\usetypescript [modern][\defaultencoding]
\usetypescript [map] [latin-modern-os] [\defaultencoding]

\definetypeface[boldmath][mm][boldmath][computer-modern]
                     [computer-modern][encoding=default]
\setupbodyfont[modern]

\def\Lining{\formula}
\def\BoldLining{\formula[boldmath]}
\starttext 

test 1234 test

\ss test 1234 test

\rm test \Lining{1234} test

\bf test \BoldLining{1234} test
\stoptext
 

And this is all pretty much specific to Latin Modern at the moment.
You're looking at fontvariants, most likely, if you want it with your own
fonts. (Recommendation (and PracTeX Journal plug:) this is done fairly
easily with rich OpenType fonts.)
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Adam T. Lindsay, Computing Dept.     atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk
 Lancaster University, InfoLab21        +44(0)1524/510.514
 Lancaster, LA1 4WA, UK             Fax:+44(0)1524/510.492
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: Old-style figures throughout the document

[Eckhart Guthöhrlein]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 at 15:33:12+0200, Viktor Varheit wrote:
> Thanks, Eckhart. Shame on me, I did not find this thread. I've just
> tried the example but it does not work here. I still get ordinary
> numbers.
> 
> I am using teTeX 3.0, and my ConText is:
> ConTeXt  ver: 2005.01.31  fmt: 2005.4.27  int: english  mes: english
> 
> Maybe I have to set up anything else?
> 
> Viktor
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> \usetypescript[adobekb][\defaultencoding]
> \usetypescript [modern][\defaultencoding]
> \usetypescript [map] [latin-modern-os] [\defaultencoding]
> \setupbodyfont[modern]
> 
> \starttext 
> 
> test 1234 test
> 
> \stoptext

Works here. I have

pdfeTeX, Version 3.14159-1.10a-RC3-2.1 (Web2C 7.4.3)
ConTeXt  ver: 2005.04.19  fmt: 2005.4.27  int: english  mes: english

I am no font expert, so I don't really know what additional setups can
be done for this, sorry.

-- 
Eckhart

Re: Old-style figures throughout the document

[Adam Lindsay]

Eckhart Guthöhrlein said this at Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:52:50 +0200:

>Works here. I have
>
>pdfeTeX, Version 3.14159-1.10a-RC3-2.1 (Web2C 7.4.3)
>ConTeXt  ver: 2005.04.19  fmt: 2005.4.27  int: english  mes: english

Right. I checked the latest main branch release (2005.02.03) from the
website, and it's missing the magic map file that Idris originally cited.
So the solution to Viktor is to update to the beta or wait for a main release.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Adam T. Lindsay, Computing Dept.     atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk
 Lancaster University, InfoLab21        +44(0)1524/510.514
 Lancaster, LA1 4WA, UK             Fax:+44(0)1524/510.492
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: Old-style figures throughout the document

[William F. Adams]

Idris asked me about this during the previous thread, before I'd joined 
this list.

Here's a slightly edited version of my reply about osf in documents 
with math:

Well, I did the second-pass macros, and most of the math markup / 
editing of a recent translation of Thomas Harriot's _Artis Analyticae 
Praxis_ from 1631 or so, and it (of course) uses old style figures 
exclusively, pre-dating them, as would any mathematics (or other) text 
before the latter part of the 19th century.

Old-style figures are named thusly since the now standard alternative 
lining figures are a fairly recent invention --- a Victorian (some 
would say debased) convention born out of expedience and a desire for 
better looking tabular material --- many railed against them, Charles 
Babbage being a notable example of the opposition to them (noting that 
in tables of logarithms, when used in difficult circumstances (I 
believe the example was an artillery officer doing ballistic 
calculations) absolute unambiguous representation could be a matter of 
life and death and that the extra differentiation provided by ascenders 
and descenders in numbers was highly desirable --- can't recall if Dr. 
Asaf Degani revisited this with his NASA reports on typography or no 
--- if not, he should've).

Bringhurst's prescription (in his _Elements of Typographic Style) is 
perhaps a bit simplistic and doesn't acknowledge the typographical 
palette which has since become readily available in newer fonts 
(Hoefler Text in Mac OS X for example affords one proportional lining 
figures, monospaced lining figures, proportional old-style figures and 
lining old-style figures --- a text typeface I've been working on goes 
this even better, adding three-quarter height proportional and 
monospaced figures, and French versions of the old-style figure 
versions as well).

Bringhurst's rule 3.2.3 would seem a better arbiter, ``Refer 
typographical disputes to the higher courts of speech and thinking.''.

Knuth, in ``Typesetting Concrete Mathematics'' (_Digital Typography_, 
pg. 369) has a cogent observation when he writes, ``This experience 
proved to be worthwhile because it taught me that there is a useful and 
meaningful distinction between text numerals and mathematical 
numbers.''

There's been some discussion of old-style figures for mathematics on 
comp.text.tex, but I don't think any absolute statement could 
reasonably be made. It's certainly valid that using lining figures for 
mathematics does provide a useful distinction (and it also greatly 
eases typographic issues such as the placement of super and 
sub-scripts), but the counter-argument that mathematics is a valid 
textual discussion form is certainly appropriate as well.

Arguably this would be a good place to use Bruce Roger's ``allusive 
typography'' principle. Anything set in a design more recent than 
Baskerville should use of lining figures in the absence of a reason 
not, while older texts could consider the use of old-style figures if 
concerns such as super and sub script placement can be worked out. But 
perhaps even that's too simplistic and formulaic.

A far more productive thing probably would be to look at actual sample 
pages to consider things in context (sorry, couldn't resist the pun).

Anyway, I hope this helps somewhat and is of use in your consideration.

William

-- 
William Adams, publishing specialist
voice - 717-731-6707 | Fax - 717-731-6708
www.atlis.com