On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 11:11:22PM +0200, Carsten Kunze wrote: > Subject: Re: [Groff] underlining > > Underlining is simply bad typography in typesetting. That's why > italic is used. Technically it had been possible in otroff to > underline--they did not use it for style reasons.
But that's not Ted's point. Many times over the years I've had to deal with scholarly books that require an typographical attempt to indicate how a manuscript has been revised. Such things as underlining and strike-through are essential for scholars to understand such changes. None of the attempts I've seen to use macros for these effects have worked well. Either some small adjustment is needed to align things horizontally or else word breaking adds to the complications. But as far as I can tell, PostScript fonts have some sort of built-in ability for underlining that other layout systems seem to be able to implement. Do these two lines from Utopia-Regular have anything to do with it?: /UnderlinePosition -100 def /UnderlineThickness 50 def Can any PostScript experts out there give us a clue as to how this might be implemented? It seems to me that everything would work much more smoothly if the underline was actually part of the glyph rather than a superimposition of two glyphs. -- Steve -- Steve Izma - Home: 35 Locust St., Kitchener N2H 1W6 p:519-745-1313 Work: Wilfrid Laurier University Press p:519-884-0710 ext. 6125 E-mail: si...@golden.net or st...@press.wlu.ca A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style>