From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/210 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: fg@fgbbs.iaf.nl (Frans Goddijn) Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: \em: real italics? Date: 29 Oct 98 15:39:00 +0100 Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035391077 22071 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 16:37:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:37:57 +0000 (UTC) Original-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:210 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:210 In ConTeXt, if I do {\em text} then the word "text" is set in slanted font. In this case, my normal roman upright Times font is faked into leaning over a bit. I'd rather have this default to real italics, since I have an italics Times font. The idea to have fakes in my text body makes me uneasy. What is a real typographer would se me hacking here? Of course, the trade off here would be that anything set in true small caps in the {\em ... } environment would me missing, since I don't have a "small caps italic" font. But I think the chances of that happening would be small if I watch out a little. Or maybe I could have a macro preventing this, a variation of "\kap" that will set in small caps even though the environment is italics? How and where could I flip a switch telling ConTeXt to use real italics for emphasized text? Why is it slanted in default? Is that a technical necessity for possible missing fonts or do the programmers think it 's actually prettier? I could be wrong surmising that real italics is better, say, in an interview where questions are in italics, answers in roman font. Met hartelijke groet! Frans Goddijn | bbs: +31 (0)26 3217041 Postbus 30196 | email: fg@fgbbs.iaf.nl 6803 AD Arnhem | tel: +31 (0)26 3219342 The Netherlands | http://www.iaf.nl/Users/Meridian -- You are what you is