🚀 go-pugleaf

>:You draw a line under it.  Sorry, but PostScript fonts do not have underline
>:stuff in them, only the info about the character itself.

george@mech.seas.upenn.edu writes:
>but this line is either too low, or it cuts through the descendants..
>Surely there must be a slick way to break the underline around
>the descendants.

Yes, you can't make underlining look good for exactly the reason George
mentions.  But even if you could break the underline around the descenders,
that would have its own problems.  The breaks would create a sort of visual
"noise".  There are problem letters--consider the two-bowl style of "g":
Either you break the underline outside the bowl, which leaves the entire
letter without underlining, or you try to show a little chunk inside the
bowl, which will create a distracting dark region and more horizontal
noise.

The "right" answer to the problem sounds impertinent - the slick way is
not to use underlining at all.  To a first approximation, underlining is a
substitute for a font change.  If you're in a position to worry about the
appearance of underlining with good fonts and reasonable leading, you
should be able to replace the underlining with appropriate font changes.
Don't underline!

(The most notable exception--where underlining is required--is legal text.
This is hide-bound; it *must* be presented with bad typography.  Don't
worry about it; just think of the poor readability as being consistent with
the incomprehensibility of the text.:-)
_ _ _ _ _

I can think of a way to do what George suggests, but I don't think I'd call
it "slick":  Draw the underline first.  Next, switch to white and render
the charpath for the string with a relatively fat stroke--this will break
the underlines just outside of where the characters will go.  Finally,
switch back to black and render the text normally.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.