which command is smaller than "\small"?
walala
which command can I use if I need font size smaller than "\small"?
Thanks a lot,
-Walalal
David Kastrup
> which command can I use if I need font size smaller than "\small"?
\footnotesize
\scriptsize
\scriptscriptsize
\tiny
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
UKTUG FAQ: <URL:http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html>
walala
"David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote in message
news:x5n0adb...@lola.goethe.zz...
no, \footnotesize is too small...
let's say \small is of size 8, can I use font size 7, which is a little
smaller?
Thanks a lot,
-Walalal
Will Robertson
> no, \footnotesize is too small...
>
> let's say \small is of size 8, can I use font size 7, which is a little
> smaller?
>
Only if you're using a scalable postscript font: use
\fontsize{8}{10}\selectfont
to set the font size to 8pt and the baselineskip to 10pt. Change the
numbers appropriately.
Will Robertson
Donald Arseneau
> \fontsize{8}{10}\selectfont
> Only if you're using a scalable postscript font
Not true. You just need that LaTeX has been told to use all
sizes, instead of a few particular sizes. The confusion
arises because the typical way to tell LaTeX to use all sizes
is with package type1cm, but the name is misleading -- the
settings don't imply or require type1 fonts.
Donald Arseneau as...@triumf.ca
Robin Fairbairns
>"David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote...
>> "walala" <miz...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > which command can I use if I need font size smaller than "\small"?
>>
>> \footnotesize
>>
>> \scriptsize
>>
>> \scriptscriptsize
eh?
>> \tiny
>
>no, \footnotesize is too small...
for a 10pt document, article class sets \small 9pt, \footnotesize 8pt,
\scriptsize 7pt and \tiny 5pt.
>let's say \small is of size 8, can I use font size 7, which is a little
>smaller?
yes. except i doubt you're getting \small of size 8, but if you were,
i bet you would get font size 7 with \footnotesize.
you probably need to go to fractional sizes and either use one of the
fonts which are scaleable by default, or use the type1cm package.
note: to find out what font size you're actually getting:
\small % for example
\makeatletter
\typeout{font size: \f@size, \string\baselineskip: \f@baselineskip}
\makeatother
--
Robin (http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq) Fairbairns, Cambridge
David Kastrup
> "walala" <miz...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >"David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote...
> >> "walala" <miz...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> > which command can I use if I need font size smaller than "\small"?
> >>
> >> \footnotesize
> >>
> >> \scriptsize
> >>
> >> \scriptscriptsize
>
> eh?
TeX has primitives \scriptstyle and \scriptscriptstyle. Sorry for
the confusion.
> >> \tiny
> >
> >no, \footnotesize is too small...
>
> for a 10pt document, article class sets \small 9pt, \footnotesize 8pt,
> \scriptsize 7pt and \tiny 5pt.
Will Robertson
Well, now doesn't this change things a lot. This isn't used by default
in order to ensure backwards compatibility with people reading from
DVI with exclusively bitmap fonts. Does everyone now use the scalable
CM fonts, or do they stick with the original METAFONT ones for better
quality?
I'm still mixed up in my head about all these font issues. Wouldn't it
have be good if everyone decided to use METAFONT for their
specification rather than Type1? (And now TrueType, OpenType...)
Poor old METAFONT.
Will Robertson
Rowland McDonnell
> Donald Arseneau <as...@triumf.ca> wrote:
> > wi...@guerilla.net.au (Will Robertson) writes:
> >
> > > \fontsize{8}{10}\selectfont
> > > Only if you're using a scalable postscript font
> >
> > Not true. You just need that LaTeX has been told to use all
> > sizes, instead of a few particular sizes. The confusion
> > arises because the typical way to tell LaTeX to use all sizes
> > is with package type1cm, but the name is misleading -- the
> > settings don't imply or require type1 fonts.
>
> Well, now doesn't this change things a lot. This isn't used by default
> in order to ensure backwards compatibility with people reading from
> DVI with exclusively bitmap fonts.
I'm not sure what this means.
> Does everyone now use the scalable
> CM fonts,
There is no universality in fount use. Never has been, and never will
be. `Everyone' does what he wants. I use the highest quality scalable
CM founts - the Metafont ones - whenever I need CM output and can avoid
pdf. I tend to use a small range of PS T1 founts for most things,
partly because Metafont founts of that sort just don't exist.
> or do they stick with the original METAFONT ones for better
> quality?
Metafont founts *are* scalable. Much better scaling than PS Type 1, as
well. Metafont founts are never bitmaps. PS Type 1 founts and Metafont
founts are both scalable, and both are rendered as bitmaps for printing.
The big differences are this: Metafont's higher quality, and does the
rendering before you send the founts to the printer: you stored bitmaps
rendered for a given printer on your computer (not in the dvi file). PS
does the rendering more quickly, so it can do it on the fly in the
printer - you don't have to have your computer know about the printer to
get decent output, and you don't have to store rendered bitmaps on your
computer.
All the above is irrelevant if you're looking for pdf output: just
*don't* use Metafont founts in that case, given what pdf viewers do to
'em.
> I'm still mixed up in my head about all these font issues. Wouldn't it
> have be good if everyone decided to use METAFONT for their
> specification rather than Type1? (And now TrueType, OpenType...)
PS Type 1 and Metafont founts just aren't up to it - 256 slots/encoding
is not enough for modern users. TrueType's been around since the late
1980s IIRC - it turned up because of the expense of PS printers and PS
Type 1 founts. OpenType exists partly because the 8 bit encoding space
of earlier digital fount implementations isn't up to doing what people
want.
> Poor old METAFONT.
The problem is that Metafont founts have virtually no commercial value,
so commercial firms don't produce 'em. Real life is complex. It's
annoying when you get complexity created by people like this, but
there's nothing one can do about it.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
PGP pub key 0x62DCCA78 Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org
UK biker? Join MAG and help keep bureaucracy at bay
Will Robertson
> Will Robertson <wi...@guerilla.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Does everyone now use the scalable
> > CM fonts,
>
> There is no universality in fount use. Never has been, and never will
I was referring to Computer Modern, et al., exclusively. I'm sure for
quite some time people were content with bitmap fonts in DVI
viewers...
<...>
>
> All the above is irrelevant if you're looking for pdf output: just
> *don't* use Metafont founts in that case, given what pdf viewers do to
> 'em.
That's no longer true. Look at Adobe Reader 6 rendering bitmaps fonts
and you'll be surprised. Even Mac OS X's Preview.app will give you
something readable, albeit a little slow and blurry.
> PS Type 1 and Metafont founts just aren't up to it - 256 slots/encoding
> is not enough for modern users.
I don't know the issues, but it couldn't be that hard to get metafont
to fill up a font with more than 256 glyphs, could it? I think there
are probably much greater issues than the 256 limit such as
non-graphical font creation and little compatibility.
Will Robertson
Rowland McDonnell
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> > Will Robertson <wi...@guerilla.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Does everyone now use the scalable
> > > CM fonts,
> >
> > There is no universality in fount use. Never has been, and never will
>
> I was referring to Computer Modern, et al., exclusively. I'm sure for
> quite some time people were content with bitmap fonts in DVI
> viewers...
Who cares about preview quality? I'd rather have top print quality -
which is why I use scalable Metafont generated bitmaps for print output
when possible rather than the lower quality scalable PS Type 1 versions
of the family.
You seem not to understand that the Metafont CM founts are in fact
scalable, and they're higher quality than the also scalable Postscript
Type 1 versions of the same founts.
You seem not to understand that when you see a fount on screen or on
paper, it's been rendered as a bitmap (unless you've got a vector output
device - virtually none are).
> <...>
>
> >
> > All the above is irrelevant if you're looking for pdf output: just
> > *don't* use Metafont founts in that case, given what pdf viewers do to
> > 'em.
>
> That's no longer true.
Oh yes it is.
> Look at Adobe Reader 6 rendering bitmaps fonts
> and you'll be surprised.
Yes, but how many people use it?
> Even Mac OS X's Preview.app will give you
> something readable, albeit a little slow and blurry.
Quite. Crap.
> > PS Type 1 and Metafont founts just aren't up to it - 256 slots/encoding
> > is not enough for modern users.
>
> I don't know the issues, but it couldn't be that hard to get metafont
> to fill up a font with more than 256 glyphs, could it?
There are not enough slots available. There's an 8 bit counter for
slots.
> I think there
> are probably much greater issues than the 256 limit such as
> non-graphical font creation and little compatibility.
I know you're wrong.