[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Newbie: section numbering option

From: Andrea Taverna
Subject: Re: Newbie: section numbering option
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:04:40 +0100

> Also, didn't you originally report this problem
> as a problem with @Math?  Your example file includes math but
> does not contain any @Math or @M symbols, so I'm guessing now
> that your problem has turned out to be independent of @Math.

In the previous post I wrote 
!> Jeff Kingston wrote:
!>> But in any case you don't need it, just write @M { x sup 2 } and
!>> so on in your paragraph.  If there is a problem with that, or if the
!>> documentation led you to believe it would not work, let me know.
!> Uh, I figured out the problem :D. I used a modified version of report,
!> where there's 
!>      @InitialFont    { Times Base 12p baselinemark } # initial font
!> If I delete `baselinemark' @M and @E work as expected but *bold* words
!> get misaligned, which was the reason for which I modified the report
!> setup. Are there other alternatives to use {baselinemark @Font ....}
!> with bolded words?

So @Math symbols were misaligned vertically due to the @InitialFont
option, which I changed to vertically align bold words. 
I erronuosly thought that bold words counted as "big" words that, as
lout user manual reports at pg. 15, are vertically aligned to the
baseline by default.

> My current guess is that you have a font substitution problem -
> Lout is using the metrics for one font, and your PostScript
> viewer is printing the words in another.  But why this should
> occur with such a basic font as Times Bold, I can't imagine.
The problem is, apparently, the viewer's. It never gave me any problem
so far. With other viewers words appear to be correctly aligned.

> Also, if you say what your general setup is (which computer,
> which PostScript viewer, etc.) someone on the list might
> recognize it as a well-known problem.  On my Linux box
> using GhostView I have never had these kinds of problems.
For reference, I'm using gnome evince 2.22.2 on a x86 Fedora 9 box.

> Jeff

thanks a lot,


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]