[lucida] Sample documents

[Josep Maria Font]

On 08/05/2012, at 0:43, Karl Berry wrote:

> Some text about osf for lucida-type1.tex would be all to the good, I
> guess.  I think it might be best to make a separate (short) section
> before the samples.  

Here is a proposal (taking Bruno's explanations into account). I propose to replace one paragraph of the current Subsection 2.2, from "By default, oldstyle figures .." to "version of these figures", because it only covers the T1 case, by this new subsection:

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%==============================
\subsection{Old style figures}

Old style figures (\textsc{osf}) $\oldstylenums{0123456789}$, accessed with the \LaTeX\ command \verb+\oldstylenums{...}+, are provided in the Lucida Bright fonts but only for the upright shapes, so that their treatment is slightly complicated and depends on the encoding you use.
\begin{itemize}
\item[-]
In the T1+\pkg{textcomp} case, you get \textsc{osf} automatically in math mode by using \verb+\oldstylenums+, i.e.\ with \verb+$\oldstylenums{0123456789}$+; to get them also in text, you must add the line 
\begin{verbatim}
\DeclareEncodingSubset{TS1}{hlh}{1}
\end{verbatim}
to your preamble \emph{after} loading the \pkg{textcomp} package.
\item[-]
For LY1, \textsc{osf} are the ordinary numbers of the small caps font, so that selecting it via \verb+\textsc+ or \verb+\scshape+ yields automatically the old style figures. This is in accordance with an old established typographical tradition. 

While the command \verb+\oldstylenums+ works automatically in math mode as in the previous case, in order for it to work with ordinary text (and to get the boldface version in boldface text), its original \LaTeX\ definition has to be changed, by specifying the font the figures will come from. So you must include this code in your preamble: 
\begin{verbatim}
\makeatletter
\def\oldstylenums#1{%
\begingroup
\spaceskip\fontdimen\tw@\font
\usefont{OML}{hlcm}{\f at series}{it}%
\mathgroup\symletters #1%
\endgroup
}
\makeatother
\end{verbatim}

\end{itemize}
Now let's take a more systematic look at the fonts.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%==============================

Since the OSF issue needs the distinction between the T1/TS1 approach and the LY1 approach, I insist that a more explicit explanation of the second possibility is inserted at the end of Subsection 2.1. I mean something like:

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%==============================
The alternative preamble
\begin{verbatim}
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[LY1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[altbullet]{lucidabr}
\begin{document}
...
\end{verbatim}
will produce essentially the same output. More precisely, in the case of this example the output will be exactly the same, but in general the T1 and the LY1 encodings use different font metrics, and as a consequence a few differences in hyphenation will appear. In this case, the \pkg{textcomp} package is not necessary.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%==============================

Moreover, one sentence on textcomp in Subsection 2.2 might also be changed, as it covers only the T1 case: Replace "It's best to load..." by "When the T1 encoding is used, it's best to load...".  

> I threw in a sentence about the osf in lucidacalligraphy at the end of the samples, but it doesn't really belong there.


Actually, I think the comment on the calligraphic fonts should be corrected, because OSF are the *ordinary* numerals of this italic calligraph font, and are obtained without \oldstylenums (whose usage brings us back to the complications about the encodings, etc.). It is simpler to just delete the sentence ", which are used if available when selecting \oldstylenums for Lucida Bright".

> In principle, such details probably belong more in lucidabr.dtx (aka
> texdoc lucidabr), we don't repeat everything about every option. But
> maybe osf is important enough to be worth putting in lucida-type1.
> 
> As for lucida opentype, they aren't exactly "under development" in the
> sense that anything about osf is going to change any time soon.  So if
> you can propose a change for lucidaot.tex too, it would be all to the
> good.

I'm sorry but here I'm lost... 

I hope more knowledgeable people in TeX and in English will improve these proposals...

Best,


JMaF