# [texhax] some questions

P. R. Stanley prstanley at ntlworld.com
Sun Mar 1 18:42:59 CET 2009

I think that's what lies at the heart of my question. I am first and
foremost interested in the semantics as denoted by the various font
attributes. Of course, it would help also to have some perspective of
the physical attributes  as well.
Paul

difference among \text* and \math* is a question of meaning, not
layout. Let me copy a piece o text from The LaTeX Companion (sec 7.4
on p. 347):

>"...(in math formulas) individual shapes convey specific
>information. For example, bold upright letters may represent vectors..."
>
>So, you don't use \math* just because you are in math mode, but
>because you need to set a specific meaning to a symbol, and this is
>(or might be) done changing the font (the more appropriate one is up to you).
>
>The question is more or less the same as asking "what is the
>difference between \textit and \emph?" And the answer is that while
>\textit switch the font to an italic shape, \emph emphasizes the
>text, what can be done with bold faces, underlines, colors, italics
>(\textit, for instance) etc.
>
>In time: the fonts associated to the comands \text* and \math* are
>different, although in the Computer Modern families they are equal
>in series and shapes. You can check this by loading a font package
>that does not have support for math fonts (utopia, for example).
>
>[]s
>Ivan
>
>
>I mean, using the Computer Modern font families
>
>On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 13:27, P. R. Stanley
><<mailto:prstanley at ntlworld.com>prstanley at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >P. R. Stanley wrote:
> >>Hi folks
> >>1. What effect does placing a letter [A-Za-z] in math mode produce,
> >>for example $x$ $A$?
> >
> >It sets the letter in maths italic, which is similar
> >to (but not the same as) text italics.
> >
> >>Sorry to be a pain, what is the difference between math italic and
> >>text italic? Where would one use math italic? For examplem is it
> >>for something as undane as a variable -- $xy$?
>
> >----------[snip]----------
>
> >It's a great shame that (as far as I know) no-one has yet reported a
> >document from whence all of these things can be gleaned.
>well, with my questions and the answers from the list we may have
>already started creating such a document. :-)
>
>Cheers
>Paul
>
>_______________________________________________
>TeX FAQ: <http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq>http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
>Mailing list archives:
><http://tug.org/pipermail/texhax/>http://tug.org/pipermail/texhax/
>
>Automated subscription management:
><http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/texhax>http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/texhax
>Human mailing list managers: <mailto:postmaster at tug.org>postmaster at tug.org
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
>Mailing list archives: http://tug.org/pipermail/texhax/