[lucida] Problems with Lucida OT font typesetting

John H Lienhard lienhard at mit.edu
Sat Apr 30 23:35:22 CEST 2022

Hi J R,

It appears that your source file is missing the correct line to active math version=bold. Put this in your preamble, and \boldmath will do its job:


At the point where you call \mathbf{}, you note that that you get an upright, not italic, bold symbol.  This is the expected behavior for \mathbf – it calls the bold text character.  With unicode-math, you want \symbfit instead.  Could I suggest you have a look at the documentation for unicode-math?  From the terminal,

texdoc unicode-math

will bring it up (or look for it in ctan.org).

For the \mathcal  symbol, you are getting the [default] script option of Lucida.  If you prefer more calligraphic option, put:

\setmathfont{LucidaBrightMathOT.otf}[RawFeature = {+ss04}]

This calls stylistic set 04 (see the lucida-otf documentation), which is a different mathcal font.

On the \emph font, I’m not sure what you are expecting to see other than italic?  Have a look at the discussion of \emph in the fontspec documentation.

Hope this helps a bit.


From: lucida <lucida-bounces+lienhard=mit.edu at tug.org> on behalf of R Martinez <rm.tech at mac.com>
Date: Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 4:32 PM
To: TeXnical discussion of the Lucida fonts. <lucida at tug.org>
Subject: [lucida] Problems with Lucida OT font typesetting

I am new using the Lucida OT fonts and have been testing them. Thanks to Bruno Voisin, the fonts are correctly installed on my M1 MacBook Pro running OS 12.3.1. I’m using MacTeX 2022 with TeXShop 4.72. I have correctly typeset all the Lucida source documents that are included in the Lucida distribution.

The problems are described in detail in the attached PDF document, which contains the output of my test.

In a nutshell, there are three problems:
1. Using boldface in math mode.
2. Same text printed in emphasis and italic mode are identical.
3. The \mathcal typeface produces the wrong output.

Below is my source text. The preamble is extracted from the lucidaot.tex document provided with the Lucida font distribution. The annotated output is in the attached PDF document.

I will greatly appreciate comments and suggestions.

Thanks in advance.

J R Martinez


% ----------Document class-------------------------------


%!TEX TS-program = xelatex
% !TEX encoding = UTF-8 Unicode



\usepackage{fontspec} % For XeLaTeX

\usepackage{amssymb} %This is redundant when using STIX and kpfonts-otf
\usepackage{bm} %For bold math symbol

\usepackage{fontspec}      % support opentype text fonts
\usepackage{unicode-math}  % support opentype math fonts

% Slightly reduce font size.
% The explicit .otf extension tells the engines to find the font via
% filenames in the TeX trees, rather than as system-installed fonts.
\setmainfont[% main rm
\setsansfont[% main sans
\setmonofont[% main typewriter
% The specialized one-off fonts:
% GrandeMono and Console fonts for an example:




Lucida Bright OT  fonts \\

There are three problems:
\item Using boldface in math mode.
\item Using \verb"\emph" in text mode.
\item Something is wrong with the \verb"\mathcal" command.

Problem 1: Using boldface in math mode.\\
The problem: I want the math symbol $B_{3}$ to be in boldface in math mode with $B$ not upright. Both B and its subscript 3 should be in boldface. The command \verb"\bm{}" from the ``bm'' package does not work at all.

The following examples illustrate the problem. I show the typeset original followed by the command.

This is the original in plain math.

$B_3\big(s,a,(a+4)/3\big)$    \\
\verb"$B_3\big(s,a,(a+4)/3\big)$" \\

This is the attempt using \verb"\boldmath".
The \verb"\boldmath" command does not do anything.

$\boldmath{B_3}\big(s,a,(a+4)/3\big)$ \\
\verb"$\boldmath{B_3}\big(s,a,(a+4)/3\big)$" \\

This is the attempt using \verb"\mathbf".
The \verb"\mathbf" command changes \verb"B_{3}" to boldface but B is upright:
$\mathbf{B_3}\big(s,a,(a+4)/3\big)$.   \\
\verb"$\mathbf{B_3}\big(s,a,(a+4)/3\big)$" \\

Typeface issues.\\

Problem 2: The emphasis and italic typeface commands produce identical output.
Examples follow. \\

These illustrate the issue with \verb"\emph". \\
\emph{Emphasis},  \textit{Emphasis in italic mode} \\
\verb"\emph{Emphasis},  \textit{Emphasis in italic mode}" \\

\textit{Italic}, \emph{Italic in emphasis mode} \\
\verb"\textit{Italic}, \emph{Italic in emphasis mode}" \\

Problem 3: \verb"\mathcal" produces the wrong output.
These illustrate the issue with  \verb"\mathcal", namely, the typeset characters are not the Lucida Calligraphy OT characters.

$ \mathcal{MathCal}, \mathcal{MATHCAL} $ \\
\verb"$ \mathcal{MathCal}, \mathcal{MATHCAL} $" \\

$\mathcal{A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M}$ \\
\verb"$\mathcal{A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M}$" \\

$\mathcal{N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z}$ \\
\verb"$\mathcal{N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z}$" \\

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://tug.org/pipermail/lucida/attachments/20220430/d4259dc3/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the lucida mailing list.