Different rendering in latex doc between Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux

Different rendering in latex doc between Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux

[Angelo Graziosi]

Just for completeness..

Using both on Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux builds "emacs -q", I notice that with

  \emph{foo}

'foo' is rendered in 'italic' on Windows and macOS while it is rendered in 'underlined bold' on GNU/Linux. I tried with different fonts on both systems. The color is the same.

Why the behavior is different on GNU/Linux?

Ciao,
  Angelo.

Re: Different rendering in latex doc between Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2022 13:48:33 +0100 (CET)
> From: Angelo Graziosi <angelo.g0@libero.it>
> 
> Using both on Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux builds "emacs -q", I notice that with
> 
>   \emph{foo}
> 
> 'foo' is rendered in 'italic' on Windows and macOS while it is rendered in 'underlined bold' on GNU/Linux. I tried with different fonts on both systems. The color is the same.
> 
> Why the behavior is different on GNU/Linux?

I suspect on GNU/Linux, Emacs is configured to load some optional package.
The -q option doesn't disable site-init files.

If the above doesn't solve the problem, please tell what face do you see on
"foo" (using, for example, describe-text-properties).

Re: Different rendering in latex doc between Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux

[Angelo Graziosi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1207 bytes --]


> Il 26/11/2022 15:14 Eli Zaretskii ha scritto:
> 
>  
> > Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2022 13:48:33 +0100 (CET)
> > From: Angelo Graziosi 
> > 
> > Using both on Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux builds "emacs -q", I notice that with
> > 
> >   \emph{foo}
> > 
> > 'foo' is rendered in 'italic' on Windows and macOS while it is rendered in 'underlined bold' on GNU/Linux. I tried with different fonts on both systems. The color is the same.
> > 
> > Why the behavior is different on GNU/Linux?
> 
> I suspect on GNU/Linux, Emacs is configured to load some optional package.
> The -q option doesn't disable site-init files.

Sorry, but I do not understand this. How can I disable that? I use two package from MELPA and one from ELPA and they are not loaded with 'emacs -q'... In any case, see below...

> 
> If the above doesn't solve the problem, please tell what face do you see on
> "foo" (using, for example, describe-text-properties).

The result of the above command is the same, both on Windows and GNU/Linux but on GNU/Linux 'foo' is rendered in underline bold while on Windows it is in italic. I create a foo.tex file with '\emph{foo}' on the first line and with the cursor on 'f' of 'foo'. See the attachments..

[-- Attachment #2: gnulinux-footex-test.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 31503 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: win10pro-footex-test.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 24443 bytes --]

Re: Different rendering in latex doc between Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2022 17:08:41 +0100 (CET)
> From: Angelo Graziosi <angelo.g0@libero.it>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> > I suspect on GNU/Linux, Emacs is configured to load some optional package.
> > The -q option doesn't disable site-init files.
> 
> Sorry, but I do not understand this. How can I disable that?

By using "emacs -Q" (capital Q).  But it is not important in this case, see
below.

> The result of the above command is the same, both on Windows and GNU/Linux but on GNU/Linux 'foo' is rendered in underline bold while on Windows it is in italic. I create a foo.tex file with '\emph{foo}' on the first line and with the cursor on 'f' of 'foo'. See the attachments..

The images show that the font you use on GNU/Linux doesn't have the italics
variant, so Emacs uses underline instead, per the defface:

  (defface italic
    '((((supports :slant italic))
       :slant italic)
      (((supports :underline t))
       :underline t)

Re: Different rendering in latex doc between Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux

[Angelo Graziosi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1748 bytes --]


> Il 26/11/2022 17:45 Eli Zaretskii ha scritto:
> 
>  
> > Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2022 17:08:41 +0100 (CET)
> > From: Angelo Graziosi 
> > Cc: 
> > 
> > > I suspect on GNU/Linux, Emacs is configured to load some optional package.
> > > The -q option doesn't disable site-init files.
> > 
> > Sorry, but I do not understand this. How can I disable that?
> 
> By using "emacs -Q" (capital Q).  But it is not important in this case, see

Ah, I thought the contrary..

> below.
> 
> > The result of the above command is the same, both on Windows and GNU/Linux but on GNU/Linux 'foo' is rendered in underline bold while on Windows it is in italic. I create a foo.tex file with '\emph{foo}' on the first line and with the cursor on 'f' of 'foo'. See the attachments..
> 
> The images show that the font you use on GNU/Linux doesn't have the italics
> variant, so Emacs uses underline instead, per the defface:
> 
>   (defface italic
>     '((((supports :slant italic))
>        :slant italic)
>       (((supports :underline t))
>        :underline t)

Hmm.. this is strange. "emacs -q/Q" uses Monospace and in Emacs, 'Menu-Set Default Font...' seems to show that Monospace has italic (see the attachment taken with 'emacs -Q')! But really I tried with many fonts (Andale Mono, Bitstream Vera Sans Mono, Courier, DejaVu sans Mono book, FreeMono, Noto...) all listed with the the regular, italic, bold.. versions and with the same negative results.

This does not occur on Windows or macOS.

If you see the image in my previous post, win10pro-footex-test.png, it uses Courier, the same Courier New listed in Emacs Set Default Font menu item but there it is italic not underlined.

Anyway, may you suggest a font to be used with Emacs in GNU/Linux to test this?

[-- Attachment #2: monospace-italic.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 78221 bytes --]

Re: Different rendering in latex doc between Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2022 20:03:59 +0100 (CET)
> From: Angelo Graziosi <angelo.g0@libero.it>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> > > The result of the above command is the same, both on Windows and GNU/Linux but on GNU/Linux 'foo' is rendered in underline bold while on Windows it is in italic. I create a foo.tex file with '\emph{foo}' on the first line and with the cursor on 'f' of 'foo'. See the attachments..
> > 
> > The images show that the font you use on GNU/Linux doesn't have the italics
> > variant, so Emacs uses underline instead, per the defface:
> > 
> >   (defface italic
> >     '((((supports :slant italic))
> >        :slant italic)
> >       (((supports :underline t))
> >        :underline t)
> 
> Hmm.. this is strange. "emacs -q/Q" uses Monospace and in Emacs, 'Menu-Set Default Font...' seems to show that Monospace has italic (see the attachment taken with 'emacs -Q')! But really I tried with many fonts (Andale Mono, Bitstream Vera Sans Mono, Courier, DejaVu sans Mono book, FreeMono, Noto...) all listed with the the regular, italic, bold.. versions and with the same negative results.
> 
> This does not occur on Windows or macOS.

Maybe it' isn't the font, but something else, I don't know.  The fact is
that Emacs says the face is 'italic', but displays it as underline.  And the
above says this happens when italics cannot be produced for some reason.

> Anyway, may you suggest a font to be used with Emacs in GNU/Linux to test this?

Sorry, no.  I don't know what to suggest.  Maybe someone else does.

Re: Different rendering in latex doc between Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux

[Jim Porter]

On 11/26/2022 4:48 AM, Angelo Graziosi wrote:
> Just for completeness..
> 
> Using both on Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux builds "emacs -q", I notice that with
> 
>    \emph{foo}
> 
> 'foo' is rendered in 'italic' on Windows and macOS while it is rendered in 'underlined bold' on GNU/Linux. I tried with different fonts on both systems. The color is the same.
> 
> Why the behavior is different on GNU/Linux?

My crystal ball tells me that you need to install the package 
`fonts-dejavu-extra`. You likely don't have the italic forms of DejaVu 
Sans Mono installed, and so Emacs falls back to rendering it with an 
underline.

Re: Different rendering in latex doc between Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux

[Angelo Graziosi]

> Il 26/11/2022 20:20 Jim Porter ha scritto:
> 
>  
> On 11/26/2022 4:48 AM, Angelo Graziosi wrote:
> > Just for completeness..
> > 
> > Using both on Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux builds "emacs -q", I notice that with
> > 
> >    \emph{foo}
> > 
> > 'foo' is rendered in 'italic' on Windows and macOS while it is rendered in 'underlined bold' on GNU/Linux. I tried with different fonts on both systems. The color is the same.
> > 
> > Why the behavior is different on GNU/Linux?
> 
> My crystal ball tells me that you need to install the package 
> `fonts-dejavu-extra`. You likely don't have the italic forms of DejaVu 

Bingo! This fixed the issue! Thanks a lot!

I wonder why this package is not installed by the distribution (Mint/Ubuntu) if it chose Monospace font as system font ...

Re: Different rendering in latex doc between Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux

[Stefan Monnier]

Any chance this problem is related to bug#59347?


        Stefan


Eli Zaretskii [2022-11-26 21:16:49] wrote:

>> Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2022 20:03:59 +0100 (CET)
>> From: Angelo Graziosi <angelo.g0@libero.it>
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> 
>> > > The result of the above command is the same, both on Windows and GNU/Linux but on GNU/Linux 'foo' is rendered in underline bold while on Windows it is in italic. I create a foo.tex file with '\emph{foo}' on the first line and with the cursor on 'f' of 'foo'. See the attachments..
>> > 
>> > The images show that the font you use on GNU/Linux doesn't have the italics
>> > variant, so Emacs uses underline instead, per the defface:
>> > 
>> >   (defface italic
>> >     '((((supports :slant italic))
>> >        :slant italic)
>> >       (((supports :underline t))
>> >        :underline t)
>> 
>> Hmm.. this is strange. "emacs -q/Q" uses Monospace and in Emacs, 'Menu-Set
>> Default Font...' seems to show that Monospace has italic (see the
>> attachment taken with 'emacs -Q')! But really I tried with many fonts
>> (Andale Mono, Bitstream Vera Sans Mono, Courier, DejaVu sans Mono book,
>> FreeMono, Noto...) all listed with the the regular, italic,
>> bold.. versions and with the same negative results.
>> 
>> This does not occur on Windows or macOS.
>
> Maybe it' isn't the font, but something else, I don't know.  The fact is
> that Emacs says the face is 'italic', but displays it as underline.  And the
> above says this happens when italics cannot be produced for some reason.
>
>> Anyway, may you suggest a font to be used with Emacs in GNU/Linux to test this?
>
> Sorry, no.  I don't know what to suggest.  Maybe someone else does.

Re: Different rendering in latex doc between Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux

[Jim Porter]

On 11/26/2022 12:16 PM, Angelo Graziosi wrote:
> I wonder why this package is not installed by the distribution (Mint/Ubuntu) if it chose Monospace font as system font ...

I think Ubuntu is assuming that most applications will be happy enough 
with the faux italic form that you can get by applying a skew 
transformation to the regular glyphs. Emacs wants an actual italic 
variant though, and (as far as I understand) won't try to use faux italics.

Maybe there's a feature request in there? Should Emacs support faux 
italics? I'm not sure...

Re: Different rendering in latex doc between Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux

[Gregory Heytings]

>
> Any chance this problem is related to bug#59347?
>

No, it isn't.  In this case Emacs behaves as expected: the font chosen for 
the default face doesn't have an italic variant, so Emacs falls back to 
underlining.