Re: proper underline

Hi Max,

Yes, I have also been thinking about this problem, which is quite tricky.
There are various difficulties:

  - If we want things to print nicely, then we need a vectorial solution.
    So if we do pixel magic, it must still be vectorial pixel magic.

  - It is problematic if to fatten our fonts using the background color,
    since the background might be a pattern or we might painting on top
    of something else.

  - What should underlining do on more complex markup (a fraction,
    a text with a subscript or superscript, etc.)?

Or do we simply sacrifice some of the things that we might want?

Best wishes, --Joris



On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 10:08:21PM +0100, Massimiliano Gubinelli wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
>  I'm not very fond of the \underline style in TeXmacs. Even some browsers (e.g. Safari) do better, in particular put the line nearer to the glyphs and take into account descenders (e.g. "g" or "p"). 
> 
> TeX has similar problems and there are solutions around, e.g. here:
> 
> https://alexwlchan.net/2017/10/latex-underlines/
> 
> Also some CSS trickery can do something for most of the browsers:
> 
> https://css-tricks.com/styling-underlines-web/
> 
> I've experimented with similar solutions for TeXmacs. Using \superpose, \datom and \thicken one can indeed create the wanted underline and it works also on the generated PDF file, however \datom does not interact properly with \superpose and one cannot have multiline underlines...
> 
> Is there a way to make this work?
> 
> I attach a file with my experiments and tentative implementation. (the colors are used to debug)
> 
> Best
> Max
> 
> 
> 



> _______________________________________________
> Texmacs-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev


_______________________________________________
Texmacs-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev