[dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
Hi, Do you guys know a (working) typesetting system other than latex ? And a good soft to make presentations ? Thanks.
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
On 02.09.2009, at 13:56, QUINTIN Guillaume wrote: Hi, Do you guys know a (working) typesetting system other than latex ? troff is definitely working and different from latex. Don't know if it's useful for general typesetting. There people who use it: http://docs.freebsd.org/44doc/usd/19.memacros/paper.pdf And a good soft to make presentations ? magicpoint: http://member.wide.ad.jp/wg/mgp/ Sebastian
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
QUINTIN Guillaume dixit (2009-09-02, 13:56): > Do you guys know a (working) typesetting system other than latex ? > And a good soft to make presentations ? cl-typesetting is useful for a range of purposes. It's not as flexible as latex, though. Don't know if there are any ready-made presentation templates for that (like latex-beamer). -- [a]
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
halibut from the nasm people is quite good. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/halibut/ so many years ago i wrote xml2doc (xml2doc.sf.net) Antoni Grzymala wrote: QUINTIN Guillaume dixit (2009-09-02, 13:56): Do you guys know a (working) typesetting system other than latex ? And a good soft to make presentations ? cl-typesetting is useful for a range of purposes. It's not as flexible as latex, though. Don't know if there are any ready-made presentation templates for that (like latex-beamer).
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
latex-beamer gives me very strange results when I want to insert some
graphics.
I spent as much time on making latex works as writing my report.
And latex-beamer is giving me as much pain.
\documentclass{beamer}
\usepackage[french]{babel}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usetheme{Warsaw}
\title{blabla}
\author{dontcare}
\institute{someinstitute}
\begin{document}
\begin{frame}
\includegraphics[height=3in]{info.pdf}
\end{frame}
\end{document}
This does not work at all. The picture is cut, I don't know why and is not
displayed within the page.
Only a piece of the picture is drawn in some coin of the page.
So I want to find an other good typesetting system to produce pdf with maths
formulas and pictures.
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
I recommend type setting using HTML. For slideshows unfortunately only Opera properly supports the project media type. Here's an example: http://talks.webconverger.com/2009-02-14/
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 01:56:38PM +0200, QUINTIN Guillaume wrote: Do you guys know a (working) typesetting system other than latex ? And a good soft to make presentations ? Troff, Lout, Plain TeX, ConTeXt. I use Beamer for presentations. -- Kris Maglione The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who think. --Horace Walpole
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
Hi,
* QUINTIN Guillaume [2009-09-02 14:28]:
> latex-beamer gives me very strange results when I want to insert some
> graphics.
> [...]
> \begin{frame}
> \includegraphics[height=3in]{info.pdf}
> \end{frame}
> [...]
> This does not work at all. The picture is cut, I don't know why and is not
> displayed within the page.
> Only a piece of the picture is drawn in some coin of the page.
Thinking loud:
There might be sth wrong with the picture, not with latex?
Maybe pdf puts some margins around it which shift the *real* picture far
right?
Apropos latex-beamer and pictures: you might find tikz (by the same author)
more convenient than external tools for creating pictures.
--
cheers
stanio_
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
On 9/2/09, QUINTIN Guillaume wrote: > Do you guys know a (working) typesetting system other than latex ? > And a good soft to make presentations ? last time i looked into this i didn't find a satisfying solution, anyway here is a list of possibilities: http://port70.net/~nsz/15_text.html
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 01:56:38PM +0200, QUINTIN Guillaume wrote: > Do you guys know a (working) typesetting system other than latex ? Nothing that compares, really -- at least, nothing free. > And a good soft to make presentations ? http://www.ngolde.de/tpp.html
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 01:41:34PM +0100, Kai Hendry wrote: > For slideshows unfortunately only Opera properly supports the project > media type. I use S5: http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/s5/ Jakob
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 02:27:48PM +0200, QUINTIN Guillaume wrote:
> latex-beamer gives me very strange results when I want to insert some
> graphics.
> I spent as much time on making latex works as writing my report.
> And latex-beamer is giving me as much pain.
>
> \documentclass{beamer}
> \usepackage[french]{babel}
> \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
> \usetheme{Warsaw}
>
> \title{blabla}
> \author{dontcare}
> \institute{someinstitute}
>
> \begin{document}
>
> \begin{frame}
> \includegraphics[height=3in]{info.pdf}
> \end{frame}
>
> \end{document}
I don't know if this will help with your problem, but this should
probably look more like:
\documentclass[dvipsnames,table]{beamer}
\usepackage{euler}
\usepackage[cm-default,quiet]{fontspec}
\usepackage{xunicode}
\usepackage{xltxtra}
\mode
{\usetheme{Warsaw}
\setbeamercovered{transparent}}
\title{blabla}
\author{dontcare}
\institute{someinstitute}
\begin{document}
\begin{frame}
\includegraphics[height=3in]{info}
\end{frame}
\end{document}
Note that you're not supposed to provide an extension to filenames in
\includegraphics statements. Also, if you want UTF8 support, it's best
to use xelatex instead of pdflatex with babel/inputenc. Much less hacky
and painful.
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
QUINTIN Guillaume writes: > latex-beamer gives me very strange results when I want to insert some > graphics. > I spent as much time on making latex works as writing my report. > And latex-beamer is giving me as much pain. [...] > This does not work at all. The picture is cut, I don't know why and is not > displayed within the page. > Only a piece of the picture is drawn in some coin of the page. > So I want to find an other good typesetting system to produce pdf with maths > formulas and pictures. Here your example works perfectly. »Here« is TeX Live 2008, with beamer 2007/03/11 cvs version 3.07 and pdftex 1.40.9. Perhaps you have to update your TeX distribution? Regards, olli -- Oliver Heins he...@sopos.orghttp://oliverheins.net/ http://blog.overheins.net/ F27A BA8C 1CFB B905 65A8 http://scriptorium-adp.de/ 2544 0F07 B675 9A00 D827 1024D/9A00D827 2004-09-24 -- gpg --recv-keys 0x9A00D827 Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
> I recommend type setting using HTML. > > For slideshows unfortunately only Opera properly supports the project > media type. > > > Here's an example: > http://talks.webconverger.com/2009-02-14/ > > HTML is useless for document typesetting for a number of reasons: -- Different browsers NEVER typeset or print the same. -- Browsers are incapable of hyphenating words, justified text has massive gaps in it. -- HTML has no concept for pages, which makes it imposable to predict formatting. -- Browsers use verry basic line-based typesetting algorithms for typesetting, which produces uneven formatting simmaler to word processors. TeX's `paragraphs as wholes' method produce much better looking output. -- Browsers are incapable of using ligatures and outher features provided by preferential fonts. -- There is no way of embedding fonts into a page, which means that you have to rely on the font being readily available. Personally I am not awere of anything capable of beating TeX for quality of typesetting, or LaTeX for speedy structured document writing which always formats exactly the same. For presentations, my general answer has bean `avaoid like the plague', and put up with OpenOffice and my mouse-related RSI.
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 01:56:38PM +0200, QUINTIN Guillaume wrote: > Hi, > > Do you guys know a (working) typesetting system other than latex ? After years of WYSIWIG and a good deal of Latex (and unconvincing attemps at WYSIWIG Latex, i.e. Lyx, and useless Latex IDEs that bring nothing over vim/emacs), I ended up wondering if DocBook is so evil after all. I mean, not saying that DocBook toolchains are easily procured for multiple Unix variants, but no 2 installations of Latex have the same packages so i end up storing latex styles inside my document sources anyway, what a waste. But my main grief is that Latex and CTAN are a mess of presentation- and semantic-level mark-up. Thus, just like you seem to be doing, I hunted for simpler stuff: - Zoem and PUD, quite suckless and rather lean yet extensible thanks to being a Turing-complete language - which is wrong in my opinion, as I am rather sold to the stringtemplate philosophy of restricted languages. Down the drain, zoem. - Markdown, small and simple but does not do that much and still a mess of presentation- and semantic-level mark-up. - Pandoc, a more fully-featured reincarnation of Markdown in haskell, plus multiple output formats, still too presentation-level, but may be worth a look again. - My current favorite is asciidoc, still a mess like the above, just quick-and-easy. For me, asciidoc is a workable but interim solution: because it is a mess that produces useful results, it makes me want to take a closer look at plain DocBook - but that is a whole lot more of work than learning asciidoc. No silver bullets, I guess. Since I cite DocBook and your question is about actual implementations rather than formats, know that DocBook toolchains are many and there is a great deal in the freely available books "DocBook: the definitive guide" and "DocBook XSL: the definitive guide", and the DocBook demystification howto by Eric Raymond. > And a good soft to make presentations ? Assuming you dismissed latex-beamer, and want a batch system, s5 is good. I am impressed at the output capabilities of s5 with a plain web browser. I have yet to look at docbook-slides. Cheers, -- Benoit Triquet .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile.
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
On Sep 02 2009 (Wed, 14:04), Sebastian Stark wrote: > > On 02.09.2009, at 13:56, QUINTIN Guillaume wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Do you guys know a (working) typesetting system other than latex ? > > troff is definitely working and different from latex. Don't know if it's > useful for general typesetting. There people who use it: > > http://docs.freebsd.org/44doc/usd/19.memacros/paper.pdf > >> And a good soft to make presentations ? > > magicpoint: > > http://member.wide.ad.jp/wg/mgp/ > > > Sebastian > > checkout troff/groff and lout. both are very well capable of typesetting publishing quality books if need be (including tables graphics, equations ...). both are _much_ smaller than a TeX installation. troff is more 'low level' than (La)TeX, even when using the existing macro packages (I use 'ms'). lout is much more high level but it seems not to be in widespread use (?) and is (according to my view) producing slightly inferior output (too tight interword spacing). troff/groff at least has a reasonable active mailing list. joerg
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 01:56:38PM +0200, QUINTIN Guillaume wrote: > Hi, > > Do you guys know a (working) typesetting system other than latex ? > And a good soft to make presentations ? > > Thanks. > What's wrong with latex? -- Jake Todd // If it isn't broke, tweak it! pgpxTIA7OAgIv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:56 PM, QUINTIN Guillaume wrote: > Hi, > > Do you guys know a (working) typesetting system other than latex ? > And a good soft to make presentations ? A key point is: do you need to typeset complicated mathematical expressions? I'm not aware of anything that has such good built-in support for automatically typesetting complicated mathematical expressions and fonts containing the symbols as the TeX family. (Using MathML is, I gather, capable of giving the same results but more complicated.) Any wysiwyg thing based on selecting and fine-tuning character and operator positions with the mouse WILL drive you crazy when you decide to change notation in a large part of your document for consistency reasons. Most powerpoint presentations that involve math tend to use programs that create graphic images of equations rendered by TeX code; never seen many OpenOffice presentations to know if they do the same thing. So if you're writing mathematics you'll probably have TeX/LaTeX installed anyway, so the question is whether you want to add an additional typesetting system that you'll use for other typesetting or not. Of course, if you have no need to do mathematical expressions the above consideration doesn't apply. -- cheers, dave tweed__ computer vision reasearcher: david.tw...@gmail.com "while having code so boring anyone can maintain it, use Python." -- attempted insult seen on slashdot
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
2009/9/2 :
>> I recommend type setting using HTML.
I second this: HTML, then a conversion to pdf.
> HTML is useless for document typesetting for a number of reasons:
> ...
> -- Browsers are incapable of hyphenating words, justified text has massive
> gaps in it.
The html-to-pdf converter Prince (princexml.com) supports hyphenation,
using Tex patterns.
> -- Browsers are incapable of using ligatures and outher features provided
> by preferential fonts.
Prince supports all opentype features. For instance, to get oldstyle digits:
p { font-variant: prince-opentype(onum) }
If you do not like Prince, you can also print your documents from
Firefox to a pdf file. You can even automate this:
http://torisugari.googlepages.com/commandlineprint2
++
Thomas
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
2009/9/2 Jakob : > I use S5: > http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/s5/ Urgh, S5 is really heavyweight. Try put up with Opera's support for projection and PrinceXML's support for CSS print. http://www.w3.org/TR/css-print/ http://princexml.com/doc/7.0/ Hopefully they'll be some suckless projects supporting these CSS features in the future. :) Kind regards,
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
On 9/3/09, Kai Hendry wrote: > Try put up with Opera's support for projection and PrinceXML's support > for CSS print. > http://www.w3.org/TR/css-print/ > http://princexml.com/doc/7.0/ > > Hopefully they'll be some suckless projects supporting these CSS > features in the future. :) suckless + xml + css does not compute
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
I have a problem too with xml. Though html5 as a publishing format sucks a whole lot less than the alternatives.
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
Have retards taken over suckless?
Or is this all some big sick joke?
uriel
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:31 AM, thomas wrote:
> 2009/9/2 :
>>> I recommend type setting using HTML.
>
> I second this: HTML, then a conversion to pdf.
>
>> HTML is useless for document typesetting for a number of reasons:
>> ...
>> -- Browsers are incapable of hyphenating words, justified text has massive
>> gaps in it.
>
> The html-to-pdf converter Prince (princexml.com) supports hyphenation,
> using Tex patterns.
>
>> -- Browsers are incapable of using ligatures and outher features provided
>> by preferential fonts.
>
> Prince supports all opentype features. For instance, to get oldstyle digits:
> p { font-variant: prince-opentype(onum) }
>
> If you do not like Prince, you can also print your documents from
> Firefox to a pdf file. You can even automate this:
> http://torisugari.googlepages.com/commandlineprint2
>
> ++
> Thomas
>
>
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
[2009-09-02 13:56] QUINTIN Guillaume > > Do you guys know a (working) typesetting system other than latex ? I used Latex for most of my typesetting work, but I (also?) feel the want for a smaller software. Don Knuth is great ... but `troff' complies more with the Unix Philosophy. Thus, in future, I want to work more with `troff' and its friends. Here two pages that list various other tools: http://linuxfinances.info/info/document.html http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch18s03.html > And a good soft to make presentations ? For me, that come up to be the main problem to solve, as `troff' has nothing like `beamer' ... however, this was was what I thought. Last weekend, I came across `gpresent'. But I didn't try it yet. http://www.science.uva.nl/~bobd/useful/gpresent/ The requirements are not so nice (groff, perl) ... but it might be a base to start with. meillo P.S. http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/why-not-pdf.html Is PDF that bad? I don't think so. PS is great, of course. What do you think? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
HAI 2009/9/2 QUINTIN Guillaume : > And a good soft to make presentations ? http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~dmi1000/multitalk/ THX
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
But these features are non-standard and will not work the same on
different viewers, hence the point, HTML NEVER prints the same from two
different viewers. Generally the point of systems like TeX is you can
garentee that a document will always look the same, regardless of if it
was typeset now or 10 years in the future.
>>> HTML is useless for document typesetting for a number of reasons:
>>> ...
>>> -- Browsers are incapable of hyphenating words, justified text has
>>> massive
>>> gaps in it.
>>
>> The html-to-pdf converter Prince (princexml.com) supports hyphenation,
>> using Tex patterns.
>>
>>> -- Browsers are incapable of using ligatures and outher features
>>> provided
>>> by preferential fonts.
>>
>> Prince supports all opentype features. For instance, to get oldstyle
>> digits:
>> p { font-variant: prince-opentype(onum) }
>>
>> If you do not like Prince, you can also print your documents from
>> Firefox to a pdf file. You can even automate this:
>> http://torisugari.googlepages.com/commandlineprint2
>>
>> ++
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
Hiho, On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 08:29:39AM -, hessi...@hessiess.com wrote: > But these features are non-standard and will not work the same on > different viewers, hence the point, HTML NEVER prints the same from two > different viewers. Generally the point of systems like TeX is you can > garentee that a document will always look the same, regardless of if it > was typeset now or 10 years in the future. This is the most serious drawback of TeX. Documents should look like how the user wants them, not how the author wants them. There's also that pagination is annoying and obsolete now, but this is mostly related to the former point. Regards, Mate
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
[2009-09-05 08:29] hessi...@hessiess.com > > [...] HTML NEVER prints the same from two > different viewers. Generally the point of systems like TeX is you can > garentee that a document will always look the same, regardless of if it > was typeset now or 10 years in the future. I know, this is a goal of typesetting. But is it neccessary to be so? Wouldn't it be better if the document looks different in different environments? E.g. multi-column layout in print, but single-column on screen. Or serifs on paper, but no serifs on screen. [0] also focuses on this point. [0] http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/why-not-pdf.html Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of documents that never change it's style. So I can create them exactly as I want them to be ... but is this primary an artistic approach, where instead content should receive the focus? The main question: Can I provide more addon-value for content delivery with a fixed presentation layout, than a reader gets from the ability to adjust the presentation layout to his personal needs? I'm undecided. meillo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
On 9/5/09, Mate Nagy wrote: > Hiho, > On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 08:29:39AM -, hessi...@hessiess.com wrote: >> But these features are non-standard and will not work the same on >> different viewers, hence the point, HTML NEVER prints the same from two >> different viewers. Generally the point of systems like TeX is you can >> garentee that a document will always look the same, regardless of if it >> was typeset now or 10 years in the future. > > This is the most serious drawback of TeX. Documents should look like > how the user wants them, not how the author wants them. > > There's also that pagination is annoying and obsolete now, but this is > mostly related to the former point. +1 all printed documents are obsolete and any system that is optimized for the 'paper' display medium same applies to hyphenation and ligatures which require added complexity but provides no gain and many issues wrt displaying and processing the result.. a formatted document should be reasonably legible on a 80x25chars/16colors monitor as well as on a pda said that html is far from a usable text markup solution not to mention css which is a huge patchwork without clear goals and requirements
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
[2009-09-05 10:35] Szabolcs Nagy > > all printed documents are obsolete > [...] and ligatures which [...] provides no gain [...] I don't agree on these two statements. When it's about ease of reading, then typography is very important. Well typeset paper books are much easier to read than other kinds of documents. And there is a huge difference between good and bad typography. However, I agree on your other statements. meillo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
* Mate Nagy [2009-09-05 10:19]: > This is the most serious drawback of TeX. Documents should look like > how the user wants them, not how the author wants them. I think a major requirement is that the author (and user) need to be sure that the user is able to see the author's stuff unaltered despite user and author using different tools/environments. This, of course, for the sake of understanding, or better -- for the sake of no misunderstanding due to formatting issues. The point is that the user is often *forced* to see a document in the way his tool shows it, which might differ from how the author sees it, e.g. due to different interpretation of CSS in browsers. I agree, ideally, the user should be able to see the stuff in a way he/she likes it, too. And this is not possible with a generated typesetted pdf/ps document. But if the author provides the source code (TeX) too, this should be good enough for the user. -- cheers stanio_
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
On 9/5/09, markus schnalke wrote: > [2009-09-05 10:35] Szabolcs Nagy >> >> all printed documents are obsolete > >> [...] and ligatures which [...] provides no gain [...] > > I don't agree on these two statements. > > When it's about ease of reading, then typography is very important. > Well typeset paper books are much easier to read than other kinds of > documents. And there is a huge difference between good and bad > typography. well i have read documents with good typography (eg discrete mathematics from don knuth et al.) and with bad typography (eg old university lecture notes written by typewriter) and it didn't make much difference in readability easy processing and searching of digital documents made a huge difference, but copy pasting from a pdf is a pain when there are ligatures and hyphenation etc. so based on my personal experience typography is not the main issue ymmv
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
Szabolcs Nagy dixit (2009-09-05, 10:35): > > There's also that pagination is annoying and obsolete now, but this is > > mostly related to the former point. > > +1 > > all printed documents are obsolete and any system that is optimized > for the 'paper' display medium > > same applies to hyphenation and ligatures which require added > complexity but provides no gain and many issues wrt displaying and > processing the result.. This is purest craps of crap. A high quality book typeset by a knowledgeable typesetter is *incomparable* to any automatically generated text that you get on screen/PDA or whichever low-resolution display system you choose (one that will also usually lack contrast). Robert Bringhurst makes a parallel that a typesetter with his typesetting skills is interpreting text like a musician interprets music and gives it final shape for a reader to consume (or appreciate). This is somewhat poetic, but definitely strikes a very important point. High quality fonts, ligatures, proper hyphenation and other subtle typographic elements (yes, with lots of added complexity, thank you very much) are a *big* gain and make perfect sense when typeset at 2450 dpi; pretending that text set on a 90 dpi PDA display by some quicky crap pseudo-typesetting engine is equivalent in quality is preposterous. > a formatted document should be reasonably legible on a > 80x25chars/16colors monitor as well as on a pda This does not support the argument that “all printed documents are obsolete” in any way. It's an entirely different matter that's been dealt pretty well with by tools like troff for more than a third of a century now probably. > said that html is far from a usable text markup solution not to > mention css which is a huge patchwork without clear goals and > requirements That's yet another matter, and you're probably right. -- [a]
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
Hiho, On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 11:59:39AM +0200, Antoni Grzymala wrote: > Szabolcs Nagy >>dixit<< (2009-09-05, 10:35): also, > This is purest craps of crap. A high quality book typeset by a > knowledgeable typesetter is *incomparable* to any automatically > generated text that you get on screen/PDA or whichever low-resolution > display system you choose (one that will also usually lack contrast). > > Robert Bringhurst makes a parallel that a typesetter with his > typesetting skills is interpreting text like a musician interprets music > and gives it final shape for a reader to consume (or appreciate). This > is somewhat poetic, but definitely strikes a very important point. > > High quality fonts, ligatures, proper hyphenation and other subtle > typographic elements (yes, with lots of added complexity, thank you very > much) are a *big* gain and make perfect sense when typeset at 2450 dpi; > pretending that text set on a 90 dpi PDA display by some quicky crap > pseudo-typesetting engine is equivalent in quality is preposterous. (sorry for bottom posting, but this bears quoting) this is all fine and dandy, now please get out of my computer, documentation and reading material in general. Books on paper are great, although the interface is a bit dated; I'd much rather have the 90dpi PDA screen that remembers my position in multiple books, and sometimes I can even search for stuff. I can imagine a few uses where wasting trees and technology on 2450 dpi technology makes sense (literature), but for the majority of stuff (manuals, documentation, tutorials, journals, mail) this is completely ridiculous. This is the same as why you don't see those beautiful, hand-made ironworks on buildings, bridges, etc. any more. They're all great craftmanship, but completely uneconomical in this age. So sorry it hurts ya. Best regards, Mate Nagy
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
Mate Nagy dixit (2009-09-05, 12:17): > > High quality fonts, ligatures, proper hyphenation and other subtle > > typographic elements (yes, with lots of added complexity, thank you very > > much) are a *big* gain and make perfect sense when typeset at 2450 dpi; > > pretending that text set on a 90 dpi PDA display by some quicky crap > > pseudo-typesetting engine is equivalent in quality is preposterous. > Books on paper are great, although the interface is a bit dated; I'd > much rather have the 90dpi PDA screen that remembers my position in > multiple books, and sometimes I can even search for stuff. Position in books I read is remembered by a simple device called a bookmark. No need for advanced tech on silicon+software on that. :) > I can imagine a few uses where wasting trees and technology on 2450 dpi > technology makes sense (literature), but for the majority of stuff > (manuals, documentation, tutorials, journals, mail) this is completely > ridiculous. There are quite a few users in the world. I read books, I very much enjoy this medium. Those who don't should not judge the world (claiming print is obsolete) from their limited point of view. > This is the same as why you don't see those beautiful, hand-made > ironworks on buildings, bridges, etc. any more. They're all great > craftmanship, but completely uneconomical in this age. So sorry it > hurts ya. I see them. I enjoy them. It makes my life in a mostly-modernist pre-war suburb of Warsaw so much more enjoyable than if I had to live in those boring run-of-the-mill post-Le-Corbusier apartment blocks (may they be demolished ASAP). Economy is not everything. It doesn't hurt me – contrary. I very much enjoy the pleasures of great typography, good metalwork and slow food. I do, too, read a lot technical documentation and papers online, and for those things there are obviously other needs; still, they don't make paper obsolete (and probably will not, as long as there are people with enough hedonism to actually *enjoy* the items they interact with). Regards, -- [a]
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
[2009-09-05 11:22] sta...@cs.tu-berlin.de > * Mate Nagy [2009-09-05 10:19]: > > This is the most serious drawback of TeX. Documents should look like > > how the user wants them, not how the author wants them. > > --snip-- > > I agree, ideally, the user should be able to see the stuff in a way he/she > likes it, too. And this is not possible with a generated typesetted pdf/ps > document. But if the author provides the source code (TeX) too, this should > be good enough for the user. This is then the point where the *roff tools are good examples, with their split into `troff' for printer output and `nroff' for terminal output, both from the same source. Especially for man pages it is common to deliver the sources, not the output. But this demands similar toolchains and no fancy extensions, as they would need to be bundled, to allow compilation. meillo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 11:52:03AM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > easy processing and searching of digital documents made a huge > difference, but copy pasting from a pdf is a pain when there are > ligatures and hyphenation etc. This isn't true. Any sane PDF reader converts ligatures to their non-ligatured glyphs.
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:56 AM, QUINTIN Guillaume wrote: > Do you guys know a (working) typesetting system other than latex ? Although not a true typesetting system, my ERBook project[1] attempts to bridge the gap between traditional static, for-print styling (i.e. TeX) and modern interactive, on-screen approaches (i.e. Internet) through XHTML and CSS. For example, see how this user manual of the Rushcheck project[2] is transformed from its Markdown-within-eRuby source[3] into an XHTML document[4] which comes with nice on-screen and for-print stylesheets (click the "Printer friendly" checkbox at the top-right of the web page, or do a "print preview" in your web browser). More examples of documents prepared in this fashion are available here[5]. Cheers! :-) [1]: http://snk.tuxfamily.org/lib/erbook/ [2]: http://rushcheck.rubyforge.org/ [3]: http://snk.tuxfamily.org/ext/rushcheck/rushcheck2.erb [4]: http://snk.tuxfamily.org/ext/rushcheck/rushcheck2.xhtml [5]: http://snk.tuxfamily.org/lib/
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Antoni Grzymala wrote: > Mate Nagy dixit (2009-09-05, 12:17): >> Books on paper are great, although the interface is a bit dated; I'd >> much rather have the 90dpi PDA screen that remembers my position in >> multiple books, and sometimes I can even search for stuff. > > Position in books I read is remembered by a simple device called a > bookmark. No need for advanced tech on silicon+software on that. :) Your answer reminds me of The Complicator's Gloves story[1], quite suckless! [1]: http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Classic-WTF-The-Complicators-Gloves.aspx
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
Suraj Kurapati dixit (2009-09-05, 20:54): > > Position in books I read is remembered by a simple device called a > > bookmark. No need for advanced tech on silicon+software on that. :) > > Your answer reminds me of The Complicator's Gloves story[1], quite suckless! > > [1]: http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Classic-WTF-The-Complicators-Gloves.aspx I had a good laugh, thanks. -- [a]
Re: [dev] A lightwieight and working typesetting system.
Because there is only one Tex and many browsers. If you stick on a single browser you can perfectly control that rendering. What about adding printing functionalitoes to surf? A non interactive mode could be used to generate a PDF for presentations. Btw in PDF happens sometimes the same that in HTML.. It's theorically print friendly but it relays on system fonts, some readers like ebooks can break the visualization, etc,.. I don't think the presentation matters more than the information contained. What is really disgusting in Tex is it's size. It gets more hard disk than openoffice and my mother can't use it. I like halibut, because it's simple and prints PDF or HTML files without library deps with decent formatting. At the end, you want only toformat the data with a template in 3 ways: presentation, paper, book formats. Is there any other interesting format? PDF and HTML are simple formats in core, but extensions have converted them In a mess ( read javascript, ..) This is the reason I wrote xml2doc, but I just did it to play, not to do the things right. I can imagine a flexible system with simple core supporting such stuff. If you need more than text and images just render the formulas as images, etc.. The system would look like Data -> format rules -> render ->output Setting columns, aligning text, placing pictures is something that matters at rendering time and must be decided in formatting time. Another simple but nice docsystem is POD. It is simple in core, in usage and the results are as they should be. It can be parsed easily and permit multiple render backends. The problem I see in text procesors is that there are many attempts to solve simple situations. But they fail at complex ones, and complex systems like Tex are that heavy that are stocked to a reduced usage by 90% of users. There is no intermediate point ctually to make everybody happy. Or at least I can't see it :)
