On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:22:53 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public@kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> wrote in message > news:ilaa5k$2vls$2...@digitalmars.com... >> >> PDF ensures a consistent look across different platforms and viewers, >> because the layout is fixed and fonts can be embedded. > > That's a significant part of what makes it good for printing and > terrible for everything else. > > >> Embedding formulas as images isn't really an option, because you want >> them to be in the same font as (or a font that looks good with) the >> document's main font. > > That strikes me as worrying over a trivial detail. Is the formula's font > *really*the point, or it is the formula itself? > > >> As I see it, the only viable option for embedding math in HTML is to >> use MathML. > > "Viable" and "perfect" are two very different things. If you feel that > the formulas *MUST* be in the same font as the rest, then it sounds like > you mean "perfect" not "viable". > > >> Anyway, besides ensuring good-looking formulas, a fixed layout means >> that you are in full control over other typesetting issues such as >> hyphenation. > > Again, that *belongs* in the realm of the reader, the reader's machine > and the document viewer. This isn't old-school dead-tree media we're > talking about here. In printed form, the viewing device/app and the > publication format are inherently the exact same thing, so the > distinction is irrelevent and presentation details like that may as well > be handled by the producer. But with computers, the two things are > inherently very different. > > The bottom line is, viewing a document should work as well as it > reasonably can on *anything* it's viewed on, any app, any device, any > person. Yes, that might *seem* to indicate letting the producer control > every detail, but outside of paper (where there *is* only one > "app/device" the document is viewed with) that doesn't work: Obviously, > different viewers are going to have different needs, different optimal > uses, etc. Is it at all reasonable for the content producer to take into > account every viewer/device or even personal preference that it's going > to come across, even just in the present, let alone the future? > Certainly not (heck, that would be lke the days before device drivers). > Is it even conceivably *possible* with PDF? Not remotely. The *only* > thing that has the proper information to appropriately format a document > is the viewer itself, the device itself, etc. *Not* the content > producer. > > >> And finally, I have yet to see any web browser or word processor that >> even comes close to LaTeX with regards to typesetting quality. Show me >> a PDF file created by LaTeX and a PDF version of a Word document, and >> I'm pretty sure I can tell at a glance which is which. >> >> > I don't doubt that. But show *me* the same two documents and *if* I can > tell them apart I'm pretty sure I could tell that I don't care which is > which. Seriously, does anyone without a typesetting background ever even > notice such things?
Based on your above comments, I get the feeling that you don't find typography important at all. But typography is at least as important as any other design decision, and most people do care about design. If you create a web site for some company, you want to design it so it looks professional and is easy to use. If I write a scientific paper, I want it to look professional and be easy to read. And although you may not have a conscious opinion about typography, your eyes and brain certainly do. Try reading 20 or 30 pages worth of heavy material, perhaps interspersed with a bunch of mathematical formulas here and there, as rendered by a web browser. I guarantee you, your eyes and brain will be a lot more exhausted than they would have been if the document were professionally typeset. I wish the designers of web sites and browsers would pay more attention to typesetting issues and spend less time on bloating the web with Flash animations and JavaScript misfeatures. >> I don't understand your big gripe with PDF readers either. Maybe Adobe >> just makes a crappy one? > > They do. A *very* crappy one. That's why I use FoxIt instead. > > >> I use the one that comes with the GNOME desktop, Evince, and it works >> perfectly. (It's open source, too!) As we speak I have it open on a >> 1422-page PDF document, and I can scroll without any lag, search for >> text (and math, even), and basically do anything I can in a web reader. >> >> > Does it stick page breaks in the middle of a document? Do the page > breaks serve *any* useful purpose outside printed form? Can web pages > link to specific parts of the document? When the PDF is from a book that > has smaller inner margins than outer margins, do the left/right margns > keep changing form one page to the next? If you resize the window, can > you still read it without introducing horizontal scrolling? If you find > the chosen font difficult to read, or you merely prefer a different one, > can you change it? Are comparable programs as widespread on mobile > devices as web browsers are? Do they integrate well with the mobile > device's browser? If by "mobile devices" you mean mobile phones, I really don't think scientific papers need to be typeset with those in mind. Tablet computers are another matter, and PDFs look quite good on those. And please note that I'm not saying PDF is perfect for everything. Actually, I agree with you that the only thing it is *perfect* for is printing. But it *is* preferable over HTML in some situations, and scientific/technical literature is one of those. Novels are another example. If someone comes up with an alternative format for on-screen document reading that does away with obsolete artifacts of printed media, such as page breaks, odd/even page margins, etc. and has better hyperlinking capabilities than PDF, but still lets you embed fonts and have full control over other typesetting issues, I'd be happy to use it. Heck, web browsers with decent typesetting engines would be a *huge* step in the right direction. -Lars
