[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Groff] incorrect position of 'caron' glyph??
From: |
Ted Harding |
Subject: |
RE: [Groff] incorrect position of 'caron' glyph?? |
Date: |
Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:46:03 -0000 (GMT) |
On 07-Mar-06 Joerg van den Hoff wrote:
> hi everybody,
>
> I noted the following. when defining
>
>
> .ds Macasek "Mac\['a]\o'\[ah]s'ek
> .ds macasek "Mac\['a]\[vs]ek
> .DS
> \*[Macasek]
> \*[macasek]
> .DE
>
>
> one gets an optically pleasing 'scaron' (\[vs] (second line), but a
> seemingly slightly off-center (to the left) 'caron' (\[ah]) if you
> overstrike it with the letter 's' (first line).
>
> at least if one generates pdf output and really zooms in ...
>
> in short, my question is:
>
> should
>
> \o'\[ah]s'
>
> yield exactly the same as
>
> \[vs]
Not necessarily. It depends:
a) If you are using a PS font which includes the s-hacek as a
single glyph, and this is accessed, as such, from groff
using "\[vs]", then you can expect this to be "perfectly
formed" anyway.
b) When you use "\o'\[ah]s'" to create the composite character
by over striking "\[ah]" with "s", then the alignment may
not be perfect. Essentially, "\o'XY'" simply prints "X",
then moves back and prints "Y" so that the horizontal centre
of "Y" is at the horizontal centre of "X". While one may
expect the metrics of "\[ah]" to be well chosen as a compromise
for placing it as an accent to any character in a font in this
sort of way, there is no guarantee that it is perfect for any
particular combination.
c) If "\[vs]" is defined as a composite character using groff
code (like the code in the "acc" module of s.tmac -- see
recent posts), then whether the placement of the hacek is
perfect depends on details of the code:-- is it fine-tuned
for this particular combination?
On the other hand (as in the old way of making accented
characters) the groff code is as crude as the "overstrike"
method above, then ov course the two would be identical,
and may or may not be good.
d) If you want "perfect" results, then ideally, when defining
groff code for composite characters, you should define each
character individually and fine-tune the positioning. Whether
you need to do this for any particular composite character
depends on how well they fit together without fine-tuning:
you can only judge this by eye!
Hoping this helps,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <address@hidden>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 07-Mar-06 Time: 16:46:01
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------