Template talk:Italics correction
@Lambiam and RL0919: I created (for the use of Template:prime, which is supposed to insert an italics correction before the prime (symbol)) a template that actually computes an appropriate space. It has limitations, but I thought it might be a useful part of this template. Any italic correction that doesn't know the font is going to be worse than TeX's \/, but letter forms are reasonably consistent, and f sticks out a lot farther to the top right than A or L.
Would it be worth moving the draft to Template:Italics correction/calc and using it the same way that {{prime}} does? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've not been involved with the functional development of this template; I just clarified the documentation. Since your draft appears to be a functional template, I moved it to the name you suggested, but I will leave it to others to decide if/how it would be used here. --RL0919 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- @RL0919: Thank you, but even documentation input is appreciated. You don't need to comment on the implementation to tell me whether the documentation clearly describes the idea, or (and much more important) whether the idea is clear in the first place. If the template is confusing, then understanding someone's confusion can help me redesign it to be easier to use. A different viewpoint is invaluable for this. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- I imagine that fruitful use can be made of the new calc template, but for the near future I'm too occupied with other things to think about it. In my opinion this all is an awkward fix for a problem that is actually due to the poor quality of the rendering engines of browsers – possibly made unavoidable by the limited information provided by font tables. But that is an aside. --Lambiam 17:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Lambiam: I absolutely agree that it's a kludge of great evilness. That's why I'd like a few more pairs of eyes to say it's worth it before I start using it in earnest. It's amazing how consistent the mess it, despite TeX's well-known prior art. Thank you for your comments, however brief your consideration. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)