Question on style-italic vs style=italicface

Question on style-italic vs style=italicface

[Rik Kabel via ntg-context]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1145 bytes --]

Hello list mavens,

What are the circumstances under which style=italicface should be used 
instead of style=italic. I note a difference when I define highlighting. 
I expected to see no difference in the line before and line after the 
hairline the example below, but see that italicface adapts to nesting, 
while italic does not:

Are there other places where this makes a difference?

    \setupbodyfontenvironment
             [default]
             [em=italicface] %same with italic for this example
    \definehighlight
             [emIt]
             [style=italic]
    \definehighlight
             [emIf]
             [style=italicface]
    \definehighlight
             [emEm]
             [style=\em]

    \starttext

    {\em abc {\em def} ghi}: \type{\em}

    \emph{abc {\emph def} ghi}: \type{\emph}

    \emEm{abc {\emEm def} ghi}: \type{\emEm \definehighlight[style=\em]}

    \emIf{abc {\emIf def} ghi}: \type{\emIf
    \definehighlight[style=italicface]}

    \hairline

    \emIt{abc {\emIt def} ghi}: \type{\emIt \definehighlight[style=italic]}

    \stoptext

-- 
Rik

[-- Attachment #1.2.1: Type: text/html, Size: 1905 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.2.2: WyhtCuJ9lKDXssHY.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 22003 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Question on style-italic vs style=italicface

[Wolfgang Schuster via ntg-context]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2151 bytes --]

Rik Kabel via ntg-context schrieb am 26.09.2021 um 22:13:
>
> Hello list mavens,
>
> What are the circumstances under which style=italicface should be used 
> instead of style=italic. I note a difference when I define 
> highlighting. I expected to see no difference in the line before and 
> line after the hairline the example below, but see that italicface 
> adapts to nesting, while italic does not:
>
> Are there other places where this makes a difference?
>
>     \setupbodyfontenvironment
>             [default]
>             [em=italicface] %same with italic for this example
>     \definehighlight
>             [emIt]
>             [style=italic]
>     \definehighlight
>             [emIf]
>             [style=italicface]
>     \definehighlight
>             [emEm]
>             [style=\em]
>
>     \starttext
>
>     {\em abc {\em def} ghi}: \type{\em}
>
>     \emph{abc {\emph def} ghi}: \type{\emph}
>
>     \emEm{abc {\emEm def} ghi}: \type{\emEm \definehighlight[style=\em]}
>
>     \emIf{abc {\emIf def} ghi}: \type{\emIf
>     \definehighlight[style=italicface]}
>
>     \hairline
>
>     \emIt{abc {\emIt def} ghi}: \type{\emIt
>     \definehighlight[style=italic]}
>
>     \stoptext
>

The \em command has two special values which are allowed when you change 
the style with

     \setupbodyfontenvironment[default][em=...]

with the value "slanted" and "italic". When you choose one of them the 
result depends on the current weight (\tf or \bf) but with every other 
value you're just using whatever the style command/name provides.


When you pass "italicface" you're using a style which uses either \it or 
\bi dependant on the current weight. The result from the "italic" value 
doesn't depend on the behavior or the normal italic style (\it) which is 
the reason why you get different result when you use \em compared with \it.


Example:

\starttext

\tex{it}: normal {\it italic} {\bf bold {\it italic}}

\tex{italicface}: normal {\italicface italic} {\bf bold {\italicface 
italic}}

\tex{em}: normal {\em italic} {\bf bold {\em italic}}

\stoptext


Wolfgang


[-- Attachment #1.2.1: Type: text/html, Size: 3150 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.2.2: image.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 22003 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Question on style-italic vs style=italicface

[Rik Kabel via ntg-context]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3172 bytes --]

On 9/26/2021 16:29, Wolfgang Schuster via ntg-context wrote:
> Rik Kabel via ntg-context schrieb am 26.09.2021 um 22:13:
>>
>> Hello list mavens,
>>
>> What are the circumstances under which style=italicface should be 
>> used instead of style=italic. I note a difference when I define 
>> highlighting. I expected to see no difference in the line before and 
>> line after the hairline the example below, but see that italicface 
>> adapts to nesting, while italic does not:
>>
>> Are there other places where this makes a difference?
>>
>>     \setupbodyfontenvironment
>>             [default]
>>             [em=italicface] %same with italic for this example
>>     \definehighlight
>>             [emIt]
>>             [style=italic]
>>     \definehighlight
>>             [emIf]
>>             [style=italicface]
>>     \definehighlight
>>             [emEm]
>>             [style=\em]
>>
>>     \starttext
>>
>>     {\em abc {\em def} ghi}: \type{\em}
>>
>>     \emph{abc {\emph def} ghi}: \type{\emph}
>>
>>     \emEm{abc {\emEm def} ghi}: \type{\emEm \definehighlight[style=\em]}
>>
>>     \emIf{abc {\emIf def} ghi}: \type{\emIf
>>     \definehighlight[style=italicface]}
>>
>>     \hairline
>>
>>     \emIt{abc {\emIt def} ghi}: \type{\emIt
>>     \definehighlight[style=italic]}
>>
>>     \stoptext
>>
>
> The \em command has two special values which are allowed when you 
> change the style with
>
>     \setupbodyfontenvironment[default][em=...]
>
> with the value "slanted" and "italic". When you choose one of them the 
> result depends on the current weight (\tf or \bf) but with every other 
> value you're just using whatever the style command/name provides.
>
>
> When you pass "italicface" you're using a style which uses either \it 
> or \bi dependant on the current weight. The result from the "italic" 
> value doesn't depend on the behavior or the normal italic style (\it) 
> which is the reason why you get different result when you use \em 
> compared with \it.
>
>
> Example:
>
> \starttext
>
> \tex{it}: normal {\it italic} {\bf bold {\it italic}}
>
> \tex{italicface}: normal {\italicface italic} {\bf bold {\italicface 
> italic}}
>
> \tex{em}: normal {\em italic} {\bf bold {\em italic}}
>
> \stoptext
>
>
> Wolfgang 


Wolfgang,

I understand that mechanism, but I am asking a different question, I think.

When we specify style=\em or style=italic (and most examples I see use 
the later) in a setup of some sort, I think most folks expect similar 
behavior, but clearly it is not because italic does not track changes in 
emphasis. However, style=italicface does seem to match the behavior of 
style=\em (mostly, see the bug report below).

So, I am asking whether, in places where folks often use style=italic, 
it might be better to consider style=italicface.

Bug report: \meaning\italicface gives:

    protected macro:\relax \ifx \fontalternative \s!tf \it \orelse \ifx
    \fontalternative
    \s!bf \bi \else \tf \fi

This leaves out the transition from bi to bf. That transition is done by 
\emph, but \emph may give slanted while \italicface is always italic.

-- 
Rik


[-- Attachment #1.2.1: Type: text/html, Size: 4996 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.2.2: image.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 22003 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Question on style-italic vs style=italicface

[Wolfgang Schuster via ntg-context]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4119 bytes --]

Rik Kabel via ntg-context schrieb am 27.09.2021 um 00:20:
> On 9/26/2021 16:29, Wolfgang Schuster via ntg-context wrote:
>> Rik Kabel via ntg-context schrieb am 26.09.2021 um 22:13:
>>>
>>> Hello list mavens,
>>>
>>> What are the circumstances under which style=italicface should be 
>>> used instead of style=italic. I note a difference when I define 
>>> highlighting. I expected to see no difference in the line before and 
>>> line after the hairline the example below, but see that italicface 
>>> adapts to nesting, while italic does not:
>>>
>>> Are there other places where this makes a difference?
>>>
>>>     \setupbodyfontenvironment
>>>             [default]
>>>             [em=italicface] %same with italic for this example
>>>     \definehighlight
>>>             [emIt]
>>>             [style=italic]
>>>     \definehighlight
>>>             [emIf]
>>>             [style=italicface]
>>>     \definehighlight
>>>             [emEm]
>>>             [style=\em]
>>>
>>>     \starttext
>>>
>>>     {\em abc {\em def} ghi}: \type{\em}
>>>
>>>     \emph{abc {\emph def} ghi}: \type{\emph}
>>>
>>>     \emEm{abc {\emEm def} ghi}: \type{\emEm \definehighlight[style=\em]}
>>>
>>>     \emIf{abc {\emIf def} ghi}: \type{\emIf
>>>     \definehighlight[style=italicface]}
>>>
>>>     \hairline
>>>
>>>     \emIt{abc {\emIt def} ghi}: \type{\emIt
>>>     \definehighlight[style=italic]}
>>>
>>>     \stoptext
>>>
>>
>> The \em command has two special values which are allowed when you 
>> change the style with
>>
>>     \setupbodyfontenvironment[default][em=...]
>>
>> with the value "slanted" and "italic". When you choose one of them 
>> the result depends on the current weight (\tf or \bf) but with every 
>> other value you're just using whatever the style command/name provides.
>>
>>
>> When you pass "italicface" you're using a style which uses either \it 
>> or \bi dependant on the current weight. The result from the "italic" 
>> value doesn't depend on the behavior or the normal italic style (\it) 
>> which is the reason why you get different result when you use \em 
>> compared with \it.
>>
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> \starttext
>>
>> \tex{it}: normal {\it italic} {\bf bold {\it italic}}
>>
>> \tex{italicface}: normal {\italicface italic} {\bf bold {\italicface 
>> italic}}
>>
>> \tex{em}: normal {\em italic} {\bf bold {\em italic}}
>>
>> \stoptext
>>
>>
>> Wolfgang 
>
>
> Wolfgang,
>
> I understand that mechanism, but I am asking a different question, I 
> think.
>
> When we specify style=\em or style=italic (and most examples I see use 
> the later) in a setup of some sort, I think most folks expect similar 
> behavior, but clearly it is not because italic does not track changes 
> in emphasis. However, style=italicface does seem to match the behavior 
> of style=\em (mostly, see the bug report below).
>

The basic font commands are \tf, \it, \sl, \bf, \bs and \bi and when you 
want for example bold italic text you always have to use \bi even the 
current text is already bold because \it produces normal italic text.

\em is a special case because it affects also italic text:

\starttext

\startlines
\tf normal {\em emphasized}
\sl slanted {\em emphasized}
\it italic {\em emphasized}
\bf bold {\em emphasized}
\bs bold slanted {\em emphasized}
\bi bold italic {\em emphasized}
\stoplines

\stoptext

> So, I am asking whether, in places where folks often use style=italic, 
> it might be better to consider style=italicface.
>
> Bug report: \meaning\italicface gives:
>
>     protected macro:\relax \ifx \fontalternative \s!tf \it \orelse
>     \ifx \fontalternative
>     \s!bf \bi \else \tf \fi
>
> This leaves out the transition from bi to bf. That transition is done 
> by \emph, but \emph may give slanted while \italicface is always italic.
>

The \italicface command uses either \it or \bi as result but it never 
result in upright text and the "italic" in the name tells you this, 
there are commands (e.g. \boldface) with similar results. To get a 
slanted style you have to use the \slantedface command.

Wolfgang


[-- Attachment #1.2.1: Type: text/html, Size: 6146 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.2.2: image.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 22003 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Question on style-italic vs style=italicface

[Rik Kabel via ntg-context]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1725 bytes --]

Wolfgang (off-list),

It is simply wrong to say that \italicface as defined gives only \it or 
\bi as a result. Look at the definition. If the current fontalternative 
is it \it it will give a \tf result. It is sensitive to the current 
state in a similar way that \em and \emph are, but it will always give 
an italic or roman result.

-- 
Rik

On 9/26/2021 18:37, Wolfgang Schuster via ntg-context wrote:
> Rik Kabel via ntg-context schrieb am 27.09.2021 um 00:20:
>>
>> So, I am asking whether, in places where folks often use 
>> style=italic, it might be better to consider style=italicface.
>>
>> Bug report: \meaning\italicface gives:
>>
>>     protected macro:\relax \ifx \fontalternative \s!tf \it \orelse
>>     \ifx \fontalternative
>>     \s!bf \bi \else \tf \fi
>>
>> This leaves out the transition from bi to bf. That transition is done 
>> by \emph, but \emph may give slanted while \italicface is always italic.
>>
>
> The \italicface command uses either \it or \bi as result but it never 
> result in upright text and the "italic" in the name tells you this, 
> there are commands (e.g. \boldface) with similar results. To get a 
> slanted style you have to use the \slantedface command.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!
>
> maillist :ntg-context@ntg.nl  /http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> webpage  :http://www.pragma-ade.nl  /http://context.aanhet.net
> archive  :https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
> wiki     :http://contextgarden.net
> ___________________________________________________________________________________

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3300 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Question on style-italic vs style=italicface

[Wolfgang Schuster via ntg-context]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1028 bytes --]

Rik Kabel via ntg-context schrieb am 27.09.2021 um 00:49:
>
> Wolfgang (off-list),
>
> It is simply wrong to say that \italicface as defined gives only \it 
> or \bi as a result. Look at the definition. If the current 
> fontalternative is it \it it will give a \tf result. It is sensitive 
> to the current state in a similar way that \em and \emph are, but it 
> will always give an italic or roman result.
>

If we leave the comparisons between \em and \italicface aside and talk 
only about the results from \italicface we have a common ground.

You're right the results from \italicface aren't predictable and a fix 
is needed but the same applies also to \boldface, \slantedface and 
\typeface.

Attached is the output from a modified version of the styling command 
(the \sc column is the fallback style). \swapface is unchanged and I'm 
not sure about its output because it uses the \em code for italic and 
slanted which means \setupbodyfontenvironment[default][em=blue] affects 
also the \swapface results.

Wolfgang


[-- Attachment #2: emphasis.pdf --]
[-- Type: application/pdf, Size: 21405 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Question on style-italic vs style=italicface

[Henning Hraban Ramm via ntg-context]

> Am 02.10.2021 um 10:34 schrieb Wolfgang Schuster via ntg-context <ntg-context@ntg.nl>:
> 
> Rik Kabel via ntg-context schrieb am 27.09.2021 um 00:49:
>> 
>> Wolfgang (off-list),
>> 
>> It is simply wrong to say that \italicface as defined gives only \it or \bi as a result. Look at the definition. If the current fontalternative is it \it it will give a \tf result. It is sensitive to the current state in a similar way that \em and \emph are, but it will always give an italic or roman result.
>> 
> 
> If we leave the comparisons between \em and \italicface aside and talk only about the results from \italicface we have a common ground.
> 
> You're right the results from \italicface aren't predictable and a fix is needed but the same applies also to \boldface, \slantedface and \typeface.
> 
> Attached is the output from a modified version of the styling command (the \sc column is the fallback style). \swapface is unchanged and I'm not sure about its output because it uses the \em code for italic and slanted which means \setupbodyfontenvironment[default][em=blue] affects also the \swapface results.

Thank you very much for attacking and clarifying this! It confused me from the beginning...

Hraban
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Question on style-italic vs style=italicface

[Wolfgang Schuster via ntg-context]

Henning Hraban Ramm via ntg-context schrieb am 02.10.2021 um 11:46:
>> Am 02.10.2021 um 10:34 schrieb Wolfgang Schuster via ntg-context <ntg-context@ntg.nl>:
>>
>> Rik Kabel via ntg-context schrieb am 27.09.2021 um 00:49:
>>> Wolfgang (off-list),
>>>
>>> It is simply wrong to say that \italicface as defined gives only \it or \bi as a result. Look at the definition. If the current fontalternative is it \it it will give a \tf result. It is sensitive to the current state in a similar way that \em and \emph are, but it will always give an italic or roman result.
>>>
>> If we leave the comparisons between \em and \italicface aside and talk only about the results from \italicface we have a common ground.
>>
>> You're right the results from \italicface aren't predictable and a fix is needed but the same applies also to \boldface, \slantedface and \typeface.
>>
>> Attached is the output from a modified version of the styling command (the \sc column is the fallback style). \swapface is unchanged and I'm not sure about its output because it uses the \em code for italic and slanted which means \setupbodyfontenvironment[default][em=blue] affects also the \swapface results.
> Thank you very much for attacking and clarifying this! It confused me from the beginning...

Just a short update on the topic. The following four font switches 
result now in predictable output (e.g. \typeface produces always upright 
text which is either \tf or \bf):

     - \typeface
     - \italicface
     - \slantedface
     - \boldface

Wolfgang

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________