RE: proposed convention for variation switching [wasRE:inheriting ...

RE: proposed convention for variation switching [wasRE:inheriting ...

[Idris Samawi Hamid]

>===== Original Message From Vit Zyka <vit.zyka@seznam.cz> =====
>Adam Lindsay wrote:
>>
>> It's not that I'm trying to rain on your parade, it's just that I've lost
>> a bit of enthusiasm for standardisation.

ok, but this is my take: although I can find workarounds that work for me, 
next month other some users will have to go through the same pain as I did, 
which seems to me to be a waste of collective energy. A standard solution for 
the 12 or so common variants of professional fonts just makes things easier 
for others, which is part of the whole ConTeXt philosophy (or so I thought). 
Everybody should not have to go through more than the minimal energy and time 
writing typescripts and defining font sizes. A standard convention will ensure 
some consistency and predictability.

>I generally agree with Adam, fonts are very varios. But the next Idris
>idea is nice. More intuitive then \sc, \bc, \ic, and \bic. I would vote
>for it, but ... at least \sc needs some backward compatibility :-(

Let's keep \sc. After all, ConTeXt already contains many redundancies (and 
that's a good thing imho->)

>>>%% small caps
>>>% medium \TF
>>>% bold \BF
>>>% italic \IT
>>>% bold italic \BI

Let's keep the semibold options: medium, semibold, and bold form a common 
spectrum _within_ many a professional font family.

If we as users and writers of typescripts can agree on a common framework, it 
is perhaps more likely that the developers will implement it.

My sole interest here is saving future users as much pain and frustration as 
possible. And I want to see more and more future users, including those with 
little technical facility. Fonts carry more _standard_ options than before: I 
don't think that updating to 12 standard style switches from 7 should be such 
a big deal:-)

>Another discussion proposal: I will get the rest font families from
>Storm to make the support complete. So I will have to solve many similar
>problems with naming conventions. So I am interesting about some
>recommendations. What way to solve via
>A) variants via \Var[...]
>B) \tf, \bf, ... switches,
>C) different font family.
>
>For now I am using:
>A) for extended glyph definitions and old style digits {Var[os]} (if
>they are not default in the font - in that case there might be reverse
>normal style digit variant \Var[ns?]).
>B) standard 4 + small caps + symbols/ornaments designed to the font {\sy}
>C) condensed, extended, medium, ...
>Some comments?

If pdfeTeX ever incorporates aleph's features this would all be much easier-) 
Till then...

Not sure I fully understand but here are some comments:

For A) If there is a global issue (like oldstyle) that covers all font 
variations, then your Var[#1] idea sounds nice. One could even do that with 
small caps for professional fonts but those are so ubiquitous that an 
exception would be in order for them (so small caps should always have a 
switch);

(I think that \Var[up] (for upright figures) is more intuituve that \Var[ns]), 
at least in English:-)))

B) Again, for a comprehensive framework we should keep semibold (and perhaps 
add light), for a total of 6(7)+symbols/ornaments;

C) If an option like condensed is global over all style variants, then it 
should go in \Var[#1].

If it is local and is a common feature of professional fonts (like semibold), 
then we need a local switch framework, in which case the switch mechanism 
needs to be improved so that user-defined switches work in harmony with the 
predefined ones in every relevant respect.

These are not final thoughts, but the beginnings of what could develop into a 
coherent framework for weights and style variation. I truly hope we can come 
to a common undestanding for the sake of future neophytes.

ADDENDUM:
Proposed framework:

Global options across all style variants and weights should go into something 
like Vit's \Var[#1] or a separate font-definition typescript.

For local options we can go on indefinitely but if we have to stop somewhere 
then we should by default have at least:

% lowercase
light \lf 
medium \tf
semibold \sb
bold \bf
lightitalic \lt
italic \it
semibold italic \st
bold italic \bi

% small caps
light \LF
medium \TF
semibold \SB
bold \BF
lightitalic \LT
italic \IT
semibold italic \ST
bold italic \BI

for a total of 16 simple and easy to remember switches, which should be rich 
enough to accomodate most professional modern fonts in \definebodyfont. Less 
common weights etc. can mostly be defined in terms of the standard 16 in 
\definebodyfont, then used as \Var.

Of course the user can still define his/her own, but the idea is to make the 
most convenient reasonable framework to cover the most-often encountered 
situations. I think that the above 16 strikes a reasonable balance between the 
mundane and the esoteric.

Sorry for the verbosity.

Best
Idris

============================
Professor Idris Samawi Hamid
Department of Philosophy
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523

fontsite 500 CD

[Ciro Soto]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 206 bytes --]

I've read about the fontsite CD (in the Bill Mcclain page) and I wonder if 
it is 
worth to buy it, and whether there are other similar alternative to get such
large number of fonts.

thank you
Ciro

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 139 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ntg.nl
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

Re: proposed convention for variation switching [wasRE:inheriting ...

[Vit Zyka]

Idris Samawi Hamid wrote:
 >
> Let's keep \sc. After all, ConTeXt already contains many redundancies (and 
> that's a good thing imho->)

Yes.

> (I think that \Var[up] (for upright figures) is more intuituve that \Var[ns]), 
> at least in English:-)))

I agree, both Adams's \Var[lf] and Idris's \Var[up] is better then my 
ns. I prefer 'lf', since a) it is related to figures, b) 'up' can be mix 
up with upshape/slanted.

> % lowercase
> light \lf 
> medium \tf
> semibold \sb
> bold \bf
> lightitalic \lt
> italic \it
> semibold italic \st
> bold italic \bi

What about:
light \lf
medium \mf
semibold \sf
bold \bf
lightitalic \li
italic \it
semibold italic \si
bold italic \bi
It is more intuitive, is't it?

I checked if they have not been occupied yet and at least in en 
interface it is OK.

vit

Re: proposed convention for variation switching [wasRE:inheriting ...

[Taco Hoekwater]

Hi,

> What about:
> light \lf
> medium \mf

if medium is \tf (as it is now),

> semibold \sf
> bold \bf

> lightitalic \li
> italic \it

then italic could be \ti, and all four would be consistent:

  (l|t|s|b)(t|i)

(but I may have missed some reason why this will not work)

Greetings, Taco

> semibold italic \si
> bold italic \bi

> It is more intuitive, is't it?
> 
> I checked if they have not been occupied yet and at least in en 
> interface it is OK.
> 
> vit
> _______________________________________________
> ntg-context mailing list
> ntg-context@ntg.nl
> http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

Re: proposed convention for variation switching [wasRE:inheriting ...

[Idris Samawi Hamid]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:55:19 +0100, Adam Lindsay <atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk> 
wrote:

> Idris Samawi Hamid said this at Fri, 22 Apr 2005 08:36:02 -0600:
>
>> In any case whatever high-level framework we come up with should largely
>> be determined by your decision on the low/mid-level framework.
>
> See, I beg to differ.

I  agree with virtually everything u said, but _maybe_ u missed my 
point:-))

If Hans either implements

a) >2-char swutch support; or
b) \sizea(b)(c) etc,

it affects whether the high-level framework will need to use capital
2-char switches or have the option of using unrestricted lower-case 
switches
in whatever framework we agree on. Your point is on the framework being 
_mentioned_,
mine was on the language _used_ to mention the framework (perhaps I should 
have made
that clearer). The logic of the framework used should be largely 
independent,
but the language we use to mention it partly depends on the internal 
implementation.

I look forward to our final consensus!

Best
Idris
-- 
Professor Idris Samawi Hamid
Department of Philosophy
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523

Re: proposed convention for variation switching [wasRE:inheriting ...

[Adam Lindsay]

Idris Samawi Hamid said this at Fri, 22 Apr 2005 08:36:02 -0600:

>In any case whatever high-level framework we come up with should largely 
>be determined by your decision on the low/mid-level framework.

See, I beg to differ. 
Whatever high-level framework(s) we come up with should largely be
*independent* of what comes below. Implementation details change, but the
markup should live on independently. 

It's one of the drawbacks of these terse mid-level font switches (e.g.,
\ita). The brevity really helps save keying for users, and so they're
really inviting to be used by themselves in documents. The more
attractive and robust markup possibilities allowed by things like
\definestyle go unnoticed, and relatively unused.

So you can define your markup more semantically with \Emphasis{} and
\Acronym{} and \Arabic{} and \Bigger{} and \Slightlybolder{}, and Hans
can change the internals, you can change the font scheme, and everything
still manages to get along.

Disclaimer: I can't claim to have been doing things the structured way up
until now, but I've been thinking about it a lot lately.

adam
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 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: proposed convention for variation switching [wasRE:inheriting ...

[Idris Samawi Hamid]

Hi Hans,

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:16:47 +0200, Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote:

> i'm not that much in favour of capitalized named (clashes with user 
> commands as well as some internals), so \scbf is more likely

Heh, heh, that was my original idea; with 2-char capitals I was trying to 
find a way to help you avoid the late nights, headaches, etc.-)

but if \tfa, etc. will soon be obsolete and replaced with \sizea etc., 
then we I'm quite happy to go back to \scbf etc.

In any case whatever high-level framework we come up with should largely 
be determined by your decision on the low/mid-level framework.

Best
Idris

-- 
Professor Idris Samawi Hamid
Department of Philosophy
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523

Re: proposed convention for variation switching [wasRE:inheriting ...

[Vit Zyka]

> also, whatever system we cook up ... there are so many bold variants 
> nowadays in some fonts ... in practice one will not mix semi bold and 
> bold in a running text, so again, this can be done by typefaces as well:
> 
> \definetypeface[normalface] [...]
> \definetypeface[bolderface] [...]
> \definetypeface[cappedface] [...]

Support for Hans opinion: Storm's DynaGrotesk (Dynamo) comes with 30(!) 
bolder/lighter/condensed/extended variants.

vit

Re: proposed convention for variation switching [wasRE:inheriting ...

[Hans Hagen]

Adam Lindsay wrote:
> Hi Idris,
> 
> I've brought the subject up repeatedly on the list, and got not a lot of
> response. I have to think that 1) people are happy with the standard 7
> font styles, 2) people have their own hand-rolled solution (like
> yourself, myself or Vit--see his Storm fonts support for some nice
> ideas), or 3) as Hans keeps bringing up, there are other ways around it.
> (Layered definitions, etc., which I'm coming around to think is a better
> discipline with markup.)
> 
> I'd say take a look at Vit's and my typescripts (I don't directly address
> semibold, because semibold markup in running text doesn't usually work):
> <http://typokvitek.com/stormcontext/>
> <http://homepage.mac.com/atl/tex/OpenType.zip>
> 
> The antykwa-torunska typescripts in the main distro also point at ways of
> accessing smallcaps and semibold via \Var[] variants from the main seven
> styles:
> <http://source.contextgarden.net/tex/context/base/type-syn.tex>
> 
> It's not that I'm trying to rain on your parade, it's just that I've lost
> a bit of enthusiasm for standardisation.

the problem is that we have to deal with old methods as well as new ones; there 
is also a speed issue involved. one of the handicaps is that we need to deal 
with math; on the other hand, in a mathless usage, a different font scheme is 
possible [we can even implement a new one]

> Idris Samawi Hamid said this at Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:36:55 -0600:
> 
> 
>>My suggestion: Either
>>a) the \*a(b)(c) etc mechanism needs modification to accomodate >2-char 
>>switches, or
>>b) an official 2-char switching convention for dealing with semibold and the 
>>standard five variants of small caps in ConTeXt is needed. Ideally users 
>>should not have to define switches for these standard variants anyway.
>>
>>Here is an idea (further discussion needed):
>>
>>a) Let's assume no change to the ConTeXt internals to accomodate >2-char 
>>switches.

the a/b/c/d are something from the past; since typefaces switch pretty quick, 
one can also switch the bodyfontsize (i can imagine something \sizea \sizeb ...)

thinking of it, it may be an option if i look into an alternative implementation 
with (for backwar dcompatibility)

\def\tfa{\sizea\tf}

like definitions with \sizea being a bodyfont switch to a larger size (one 
problem is that in that cas ethe baseline distance would also be influences, so 
it may not be good idea after all)

>>b) There are twelve basic style variants in a professional modern serif font 
>>(math, greek, etc excluded): six for lower case and six for small caps.
>>
>>On this basis, here is my suggestion for an official ConTeXt convention for 
>>professional fonts:
>>
>>%% lowercase
>>% medium \tf
>>% semibold \sb
>>% bold \bf
>>% italic \it
>>% semibold italic \st
>>% bold italic \bi
>>
>>%% small caps
>>% medium \TF
>>% semibold \SB
>>% bold \BF
>>% italic \IT
>>% semibold italic \ST
>>% bold italic \BI

the main problem here is this math family business so some choices need to be 
made (math does not mix well with text anyway)

i'm not that much in favour of capitalized named (clashes with user commands as 
well as some internals), so \scbf is more likely

also, whatever system we cook up ... there are so many bold variants nowadays in 
some fonts ... in practice one will not mix semi bold and bold in a running 
text, so again, this can be done by typefaces as well:

\definetypeface[normalface] [...]
\definetypeface[bolderface] [...]
\definetypeface[cappedface] [...]

and in places where this special bolder face is used, just switch to \bolderface

>>The small caps versions are identical to the lowercase versions, with the 
>>difference that the small caps versions use caps. This serves as a mnemonic 
>>device.
>>
>>We also need some long-winded control sequences:
>>
>> \definestyle [semiboldroman,semibold]                         [\sb][]
>> \definestyle [semibolditalic]                                 [\st][]
>> \definestyle [smallcapssemibold,semiboldsmallcaps]            [\SB][]
>> \definestyle [smallcapsbold,boldsmallcaps]                    [\BF][]
>> \definestyle [smallcapsitalic,italicsmallcaps]                [\IT][]
>> \definestyle [smallcapssemibolditalic,semibolditalicsmallcaps][\ST][]
>> \definestyle [smallcapsbolditalic,bolditalicsmallcaps]        [\BI][]
>>
>>An identical or similar analysis may work for sans-serif, but I have to 
>>check...

before i do something with this i need to think it over; (and look at the storm 
definitions and adamns stuff more closely; keep in mind that with xetex and open 
type being around we may need even more features)

Hans

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
      tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                              | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: proposed convention for variation switching [wasRE:inheriting ...

[Adam Lindsay]

Vit Zyka said this at Fri, 22 Apr 2005 00:43:06 +0200:

>A) for extended glyph definitions and old style digits {Var[os]} (if 
>they are not default in the font - in that case there might be reverse 
>normal style digit variant \Var[ns?]).

I'm used to them being called lf: lining figures. But other names apply
just as well.

> So I will have to solve many similar 
>problems with naming conventions. So I am interesting about some 
>recommendations. What way to solve via
>A) variants via \Var[...]
>B) \tf, \bf, ... switches,
>C) different font family.

Naming conventions are about as far as we can go--and I'm fairly in
favour of them. 

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 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: proposed convention for variation switching [wasRE:inheriting ...

[Vit Zyka]

Adam Lindsay wrote:
> 
> It's not that I'm trying to rain on your parade, it's just that I've lost
> a bit of enthusiasm for standardisation.

I generally agree with Adam, fonts are very varios. But the next Idris 
idea is nice. More intuitive then \sc, \bc, \ic, and \bic. I would vote 
for it, but ... at least \sc needs some backward compatibility :-(

>>%% small caps
>>% medium \TF
>>% bold \BF
>>% italic \IT
>>% bold italic \BI

Another discussion proposal: I will get the rest font families from 
Storm to make the support complete. So I will have to solve many similar 
problems with naming conventions. So I am interesting about some 
recommendations. What way to solve via
A) variants via \Var[...]
B) \tf, \bf, ... switches,
C) different font family.

For now I am using:
A) for extended glyph definitions and old style digits {Var[os]} (if 
they are not default in the font - in that case there might be reverse 
normal style digit variant \Var[ns?]).
B) standard 4 + small caps + symbols/ornaments designed to the font {\sy}
C) condensed, extended, medium, ...
Some comments?

Cheers,
vit

Re: proposed convention for variation switching [wasRE:inheriting ...

[Adam Lindsay]

Idris Samawi Hamid said this at Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:36:55 -0600:

>Hmm, I was a little worried at first about >2-char switches at first, till I 
>noticed that type-siz.tex uses some four-letter switches as well, e.g.
>
>============line-575==============
>  \definebodyfont [12pt] [mm]
>    [mrbf=xcmb12,
>     exbf=cmex10 at 12pt,
>     mibf=cmmib10 at 12pt,
>     sybf=cmbsy10 at 12pt]
>=====================================
>
>So I assumed that such a scheme would work.

Empirical experimentation was my guide, really. The lines you cite above
are for the very special bold math case, which came into the core only a
year or two ago. 
<http://www.pragma-ade.com/general/magazines/mag-0005.pdf>

adam
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 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: proposed convention for variation switching [wasRE:inheriting ...

[Adam Lindsay]

Hi Idris,

I've brought the subject up repeatedly on the list, and got not a lot of
response. I have to think that 1) people are happy with the standard 7
font styles, 2) people have their own hand-rolled solution (like
yourself, myself or Vit--see his Storm fonts support for some nice
ideas), or 3) as Hans keeps bringing up, there are other ways around it.
(Layered definitions, etc., which I'm coming around to think is a better
discipline with markup.)

I'd say take a look at Vit's and my typescripts (I don't directly address
semibold, because semibold markup in running text doesn't usually work):
<http://typokvitek.com/stormcontext/>
<http://homepage.mac.com/atl/tex/OpenType.zip>

The antykwa-torunska typescripts in the main distro also point at ways of
accessing smallcaps and semibold via \Var[] variants from the main seven
styles:
<http://source.contextgarden.net/tex/context/base/type-syn.tex>

It's not that I'm trying to rain on your parade, it's just that I've lost
a bit of enthusiasm for standardisation.

Cheers,
adam

Idris Samawi Hamid said this at Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:36:55 -0600:

>My suggestion: Either
>a) the \*a(b)(c) etc mechanism needs modification to accomodate >2-char 
>switches, or
>b) an official 2-char switching convention for dealing with semibold and the 
>standard five variants of small caps in ConTeXt is needed. Ideally users 
>should not have to define switches for these standard variants anyway.
>
>Here is an idea (further discussion needed):
>
>a) Let's assume no change to the ConTeXt internals to accomodate >2-char 
>switches.
>
>b) There are twelve basic style variants in a professional modern serif font 
>(math, greek, etc excluded): six for lower case and six for small caps.
>
>On this basis, here is my suggestion for an official ConTeXt convention for 
>professional fonts:
>
>%% lowercase
>% medium \tf
>% semibold \sb
>% bold \bf
>% italic \it
>% semibold italic \st
>% bold italic \bi
>
>%% small caps
>% medium \TF
>% semibold \SB
>% bold \BF
>% italic \IT
>% semibold italic \ST
>% bold italic \BI
>
>The small caps versions are identical to the lowercase versions, with the 
>difference that the small caps versions use caps. This serves as a mnemonic 
>device.
>
>We also need some long-winded control sequences:
>
>  \definestyle [semiboldroman,semibold]                         [\sb][]
>  \definestyle [semibolditalic]                                 [\st][]
>  \definestyle [smallcapssemibold,semiboldsmallcaps]            [\SB][]
>  \definestyle [smallcapsbold,boldsmallcaps]                    [\BF][]
>  \definestyle [smallcapsitalic,italicsmallcaps]                [\IT][]
>  \definestyle [smallcapssemibolditalic,semibolditalicsmallcaps][\ST][]
>  \definestyle [smallcapsbolditalic,bolditalicsmallcaps]        [\BI][]
>
>An identical or similar analysis may work for sans-serif, but I have to 
>check...
>
>Thank you very much for pinning down the source of this!
>Best
>Idris
>
>============================
>Professor Idris Samawi Hamid
>Department of Philosophy
>Colorado State University
>Fort Collins, CO 80523
>
>_______________________________________________
>ntg-context mailing list
>ntg-context@ntg.nl
>http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

proposed convention for variation switching [wasRE:inheriting ...

[Idris Samawi Hamid]

>===== Original Message From "Adam Lindsay" <atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk> =====

>I don't have time to really delve into the implementation details, but it
>looks like the difference is that ConTeXt isn't so responsive with user-
>defined alternatives with more than two characters. Compare the stripped
>down version with your own. Your \scsb has been changed to \SB, effectively.

Hmm, I was a little worried at first about >2-char switches at first, till I 
noticed that type-siz.tex uses some four-letter switches as well, e.g.

============line-575==============
  \definebodyfont [12pt] [mm]
    [mrbf=xcmb12,
     exbf=cmex10 at 12pt,
     mibf=cmmib10 at 12pt,
     sybf=cmbsy10 at 12pt]
=====================================

So I assumed that such a scheme would work.

My suggestion: Either
a) the \*a(b)(c) etc mechanism needs modification to accomodate >2-char 
switches, or
b) an official 2-char switching convention for dealing with semibold and the 
standard five variants of small caps in ConTeXt is needed. Ideally users 
should not have to define switches for these standard variants anyway.

Here is an idea (further discussion needed):

a) Let's assume no change to the ConTeXt internals to accomodate >2-char 
switches.

b) There are twelve basic style variants in a professional modern serif font 
(math, greek, etc excluded): six for lower case and six for small caps.

On this basis, here is my suggestion for an official ConTeXt convention for 
professional fonts:

%% lowercase
% medium \tf
% semibold \sb
% bold \bf
% italic \it
% semibold italic \st
% bold italic \bi

%% small caps
% medium \TF
% semibold \SB
% bold \BF
% italic \IT
% semibold italic \ST
% bold italic \BI

The small caps versions are identical to the lowercase versions, with the 
difference that the small caps versions use caps. This serves as a mnemonic 
device.

We also need some long-winded control sequences:

  \definestyle [semiboldroman,semibold]                         [\sb][]
  \definestyle [semibolditalic]                                 [\st][]
  \definestyle [smallcapssemibold,semiboldsmallcaps]            [\SB][]
  \definestyle [smallcapsbold,boldsmallcaps]                    [\BF][]
  \definestyle [smallcapsitalic,italicsmallcaps]                [\IT][]
  \definestyle [smallcapssemibolditalic,semibolditalicsmallcaps][\ST][]
  \definestyle [smallcapsbolditalic,bolditalicsmallcaps]        [\BI][]

An identical or similar analysis may work for sans-serif, but I have to 
check...

Thank you very much for pinning down the source of this!
Best
Idris

============================
Professor Idris Samawi Hamid
Department of Philosophy
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523