Re: Spellchecking in Australian English

[Sam Russell]

You should note that there are approximately six versions of en-gb, at
least one of which approximates Australian standard use. Better
results could be had he you lobbied Macquarie Dictionary for an aspell
en-au

On 2/19/09, Doug Laidlaw laidl...@hotkey.net.au wrote:
 Further to this, I installed Version 1.6.1 from the tarball.  I can select
 British English now.  I don't usually complain about a version earlier than
 the current one, but this did seem to be an aspell problem.  Fauir enough
 about there not being a separate dictionary for Australian.  British is
 close
 enough.

 Bewdy, mate!

 Doug.

 On Monday 09 February 2009 11:13:29 am Doug Laidlaw wrote:
 Not wrong.  Different.  My eyes are not deceiving me; neither are yours.

 Because Mandriva won't configure to use DVIs, it clearly has other
 problems. So I tried in SimplyMepis.  The version is newer, but the
 language selection is identical.

 In the circumstances, it is useless taking the point any further.

 Doug.

 On Monday 09 February 2009 12:11:39 am Konrad Hofbauer wrote:
  Doug Laidlaw wrote:
   The authors of aspell must be really parochial.  To them, English
   means American, Canadian is a distinct language, and British English
   just does not exist.  There are dictionaries for languages with a
   smaller user base than British English.
 
  Wrong. Using aspell and having the relevant dictionaries installed, I
  see in LyX 1.6.1, Document Settings- Language
 
  English
  English (Canada)
  English (UK)
  English (USA)
  (the first accpets both UK and US spelling).
 
  In LyX 1.5.7, these are called:
  American
  British
  Canadian
  English
 
   Is there any way of getting around this
 
  Yes, make sure your aspell installation is alright.
 
  /Konrad




-- 
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

I will give you Tacos, such Tacos as you have never seen.
Oh-one-one-eight-nine-nine-nine Eight-eight-one-nine-nine,
nine-one-ONE-nine-seven-two-fi~ve. Three

Re: Spellchecking in Australian English

[Sam Russell]

You should note that there are approximately six versions of en-gb, at
least one of which approximates Australian standard use. Better
results could be had he you lobbied Macquarie Dictionary for an aspell
en-au

On 2/19/09, Doug Laidlaw laidl...@hotkey.net.au wrote:
 Further to this, I installed Version 1.6.1 from the tarball.  I can select
 British English now.  I don't usually complain about a version earlier than
 the current one, but this did seem to be an aspell problem.  Fauir enough
 about there not being a separate dictionary for Australian.  British is
 close
 enough.

 Bewdy, mate!

 Doug.

 On Monday 09 February 2009 11:13:29 am Doug Laidlaw wrote:
 Not wrong.  Different.  My eyes are not deceiving me; neither are yours.

 Because Mandriva won't configure to use DVIs, it clearly has other
 problems. So I tried in SimplyMepis.  The version is newer, but the
 language selection is identical.

 In the circumstances, it is useless taking the point any further.

 Doug.

 On Monday 09 February 2009 12:11:39 am Konrad Hofbauer wrote:
  Doug Laidlaw wrote:
   The authors of aspell must be really parochial.  To them, English
   means American, Canadian is a distinct language, and British English
   just does not exist.  There are dictionaries for languages with a
   smaller user base than British English.
 
  Wrong. Using aspell and having the relevant dictionaries installed, I
  see in LyX 1.6.1, Document Settings- Language
 
  English
  English (Canada)
  English (UK)
  English (USA)
  (the first accpets both UK and US spelling).
 
  In LyX 1.5.7, these are called:
  American
  British
  Canadian
  English
 
   Is there any way of getting around this
 
  Yes, make sure your aspell installation is alright.
 
  /Konrad




-- 
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

I will give you Tacos, such Tacos as you have never seen.
Oh-one-one-eight-nine-nine-nine Eight-eight-one-nine-nine,
nine-one-ONE-nine-seven-two-fi~ve. Three

Re: Spellchecking in Australian English

[Sam Russell]

You should note that there are approximately six versions of en-gb, at
least one of which approximates Australian standard use. Better
results could be had he you lobbied Macquarie Dictionary for an aspell
en-au

On 2/19/09, Doug Laidlaw  wrote:
> Further to this, I installed Version 1.6.1 from the tarball.  I can select
> British English now.  I don't usually complain about a version earlier than
> the current one, but this did seem to be an aspell problem.  Fauir enough
> about there not being a separate dictionary for Australian.  British is
> close
> enough.
>
> Bewdy, mate!
>
> Doug.
>
> On Monday 09 February 2009 11:13:29 am Doug Laidlaw wrote:
>> Not wrong.  Different.  My eyes are not deceiving me; neither are yours.
>>
>> Because Mandriva won't configure to use DVIs, it clearly has other
>> problems. So I tried in SimplyMepis.  The version is newer, but the
>> language selection is identical.
>>
>> In the circumstances, it is useless taking the point any further.
>>
>> Doug.
>>
>> On Monday 09 February 2009 12:11:39 am Konrad Hofbauer wrote:
>> > Doug Laidlaw wrote:
>> > > The authors of aspell must be really parochial.  To them, "English"
>> > > means "American", Canadian is a distinct language, and British English
>> > > just does not exist.  There are dictionaries for languages with a
>> > > smaller user base than British English.
>> >
>> > Wrong. Using aspell and having the relevant dictionaries installed, I
>> > see in LyX 1.6.1, Document Settings-> Language
>> >
>> > English
>> > English (Canada)
>> > English (UK)
>> > English (USA)
>> > (the first accpets both UK and US spelling).
>> >
>> > In LyX 1.5.7, these are called:
>> > American
>> > British
>> > Canadian
>> > English
>> >
>> > > Is there any way of getting around this
>> >
>> > Yes, make sure your aspell installation is alright.
>> >
>> > /Konrad
>
>
>

-- 
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

I will give you Tacos, such Tacos as you have never seen.
Oh-one-one-eight-nine-nine-nine Eight-eight-one-nine-nine,
nine-one-ONE-nine-seven-two-fi~ve. Three

Re: All Authors in citation

[Sam Russell]

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:03 AM, H [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I use biblatex (and I'm also a new LyX user, and I also use Endnote import!)
 and I just LOVE it.
 Some tricky to install and have it work, and still UNSTABLE, but it should
 work perfect for you:  just read the docs.

I also use OS X + biblatex.

I'm using BibDesk.app to edit and manage my biblatex files, and have a
christmas tree Typeinfo.plist for BibDesk.app.  I'm not touching
output at the moment, but if you have problems with Endnote =
biblatex, then BibDesk.app.  Does anyone else in the Humanities have
anything to report about biblatex + lyx?

thanks,
Sam Russell.

-- 
I will give you Tacos, such Tacos as you have never seen.
Oh-one-one-eight-nine-nine-nine Eight-eight-one-nine-nine,
nine-one-ONE-nine-seven-two-fi~ve. Three

Re: All Authors in citation

[Sam Russell]

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:03 AM, H [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I use biblatex (and I'm also a new LyX user, and I also use Endnote import!)
 and I just LOVE it.
 Some tricky to install and have it work, and still UNSTABLE, but it should
 work perfect for you:  just read the docs.

I also use OS X + biblatex.

I'm using BibDesk.app to edit and manage my biblatex files, and have a
christmas tree Typeinfo.plist for BibDesk.app.  I'm not touching
output at the moment, but if you have problems with Endnote =
biblatex, then BibDesk.app.  Does anyone else in the Humanities have
anything to report about biblatex + lyx?

thanks,
Sam Russell.

-- 
I will give you Tacos, such Tacos as you have never seen.
Oh-one-one-eight-nine-nine-nine Eight-eight-one-nine-nine,
nine-one-ONE-nine-seven-two-fi~ve. Three

Re: All Authors in citation

[Sam Russell]

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:03 AM, H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I use biblatex (and I'm also a new LyX user, and I also use Endnote import!)
> and I just LOVE it.
> Some tricky to install and have it work, and still UNSTABLE, but it should
> work perfect for you:  just read the docs.

I also use OS X + biblatex.

I'm using BibDesk.app to edit and manage my biblatex files, and have a
"christmas tree" Typeinfo.plist for BibDesk.app.  I'm not touching
output at the moment, but if you have problems with Endnote =>
biblatex, then BibDesk.app.  Does anyone else in the Humanities have
anything to report about biblatex + lyx?

thanks,
Sam Russell.

-- 
I will give you Tacos, such Tacos as you have never seen.
Oh-one-one-eight-nine-nine-nine Eight-eight-one-nine-nine,
nine-one-ONE-nine-seven-two-fi~ve. Three

Re: Confused about Lyx's goals -- isn't this supposed to increase productivity?

[Sam Russell]

On 19/06/06, Jeremy Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

For some time I have been evaluating Lyx as an academic word processor, but 
find it wanting in a few critical areas.
Judging from the number of posts to this lists, citations and bibliographies 
are a major issue. There is no easy to use
method (e.g., a GUI) that can define the options for natbib, jurabib, or any 
number of bibliography styles. Most
importantly, customizing these styles again requires one to write more code, 
yet again, instead of engaging in the
writing process.


Yes.  Especially for the Humanities where Journal X or Department Y
has its own house style.


I suppose what I'm hoping for is someone to say 1) no, you're wrong, because...; 
2) wait x number of years and we'll
be there; or 3) if you don't like coding, use a different tool.


1) No you're wrong.  LyX is a front end, designed to make LaTeX
easier, which it has successed at.  Its suffering from mission-shift
at the moment as more people take it up.  Due to the sciences bias in
the initial user group / development group, LyX and LaTeX achieve
science results with greater ease.  I anticipate this will change as
more humanities users take LyX/LaTeX up.

2) Wait x number of years and we'll be closer to a front-end for more
LaTeX features.  Though this may mean tkJuraBibStyleEditor as a device
independent GUI ap, rather than the features embedded in LyX itself.
Or it may mean tkLyX_Semi_WYSIWYM/WYSIWYG_StyleEditor instead of a
style editor within LyX itself.  Or it may mean
LyX_DocumentTemplate_Humanities_History_ChicagoFootnotes_UniversityFoo_DeptBar_StyleBok
etc.  Who knows?  It depends on the contributions from the community
of users and developers between now and year X.

What I do know is the age, stability and support for LyX/LaTeX/TeX
means that your commitment is unlikely to be wasted by technological
or commercial change: Company X won't fail and no longer support their
document format.

3) If you don't like the limitations of LyX as it currently is, and
don't like the bug/feature resolution system of ERT / feature
requesting / solving it yourself and sharing the results, don't use
LyX.  The community development culture is unlikely to change.


This whole thing is extremely frustrating as I can see the huge promise that 
the LaTeX/Lyx system can offer, but it's
awfully rough beneath the surface.


Yes.  I found that LyX was great to write undergraduate / honours work
in without a bibliography / citation manager.  Now that I'm working on
journal articles and my doctoral dissertation, I'm finding that I'm
coming up against new challenges with regards to citation management.
1.4.3 provides far more suitable and easy solutions than 1.3.7 did for
me.  It also took a large amount of time to find the right device
independent tools for bibliography management, and the ones which
suited my academic needs over a career.  I found this a more useful
investment of my time than the repeated wordprocessor crashes and
frustrations of EndNote.  Your situation may differ.

Finally, LyX development works more like a community of knowledge than
a commercial developer.  People produce new ideas, or reproduce old
ideas, and share them for free.  The cost is of course, people may not
have developed the ideas you need, yet.

yours,
Sam R.
--
I will give you Tacos, such Tacos as you have never seen.

Re: Confused about Lyx's goals -- isn't this supposed to increase productivity?

[Sam Russell]

On 19/06/06, Jeremy Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

For some time I have been evaluating Lyx as an academic word processor, but 
find it wanting in a few critical areas.
Judging from the number of posts to this lists, citations and bibliographies 
are a major issue. There is no easy to use
method (e.g., a GUI) that can define the options for natbib, jurabib, or any 
number of bibliography styles. Most
importantly, customizing these styles again requires one to write more code, 
yet again, instead of engaging in the
writing process.


Yes.  Especially for the Humanities where Journal X or Department Y
has its own house style.


I suppose what I'm hoping for is someone to say 1) no, you're wrong, because...; 
2) wait x number of years and we'll
be there; or 3) if you don't like coding, use a different tool.


1) No you're wrong.  LyX is a front end, designed to make LaTeX
easier, which it has successed at.  Its suffering from mission-shift
at the moment as more people take it up.  Due to the sciences bias in
the initial user group / development group, LyX and LaTeX achieve
science results with greater ease.  I anticipate this will change as
more humanities users take LyX/LaTeX up.

2) Wait x number of years and we'll be closer to a front-end for more
LaTeX features.  Though this may mean tkJuraBibStyleEditor as a device
independent GUI ap, rather than the features embedded in LyX itself.
Or it may mean tkLyX_Semi_WYSIWYM/WYSIWYG_StyleEditor instead of a
style editor within LyX itself.  Or it may mean
LyX_DocumentTemplate_Humanities_History_ChicagoFootnotes_UniversityFoo_DeptBar_StyleBok
etc.  Who knows?  It depends on the contributions from the community
of users and developers between now and year X.

What I do know is the age, stability and support for LyX/LaTeX/TeX
means that your commitment is unlikely to be wasted by technological
or commercial change: Company X won't fail and no longer support their
document format.

3) If you don't like the limitations of LyX as it currently is, and
don't like the bug/feature resolution system of ERT / feature
requesting / solving it yourself and sharing the results, don't use
LyX.  The community development culture is unlikely to change.


This whole thing is extremely frustrating as I can see the huge promise that 
the LaTeX/Lyx system can offer, but it's
awfully rough beneath the surface.


Yes.  I found that LyX was great to write undergraduate / honours work
in without a bibliography / citation manager.  Now that I'm working on
journal articles and my doctoral dissertation, I'm finding that I'm
coming up against new challenges with regards to citation management.
1.4.3 provides far more suitable and easy solutions than 1.3.7 did for
me.  It also took a large amount of time to find the right device
independent tools for bibliography management, and the ones which
suited my academic needs over a career.  I found this a more useful
investment of my time than the repeated wordprocessor crashes and
frustrations of EndNote.  Your situation may differ.

Finally, LyX development works more like a community of knowledge than
a commercial developer.  People produce new ideas, or reproduce old
ideas, and share them for free.  The cost is of course, people may not
have developed the ideas you need, yet.

yours,
Sam R.
--
I will give you Tacos, such Tacos as you have never seen.

Re: Confused about Lyx's goals -- isn't this supposed to increase productivity?

[Sam Russell]

On 19/06/06, Jeremy Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

For some time I have been evaluating Lyx as an academic word processor, but 
find it wanting in a few critical areas.
Judging from the number of posts to this lists, citations and bibliographies 
are a major issue. There is no easy to use
method (e.g., a GUI) that can define the options for natbib, jurabib, or any 
number of bibliography styles. Most
importantly, customizing these styles again requires one to write more code, 
yet again, instead of engaging in the
writing process.


Yes.  Especially for the Humanities where Journal X or Department Y
has its own house style.


I suppose what I'm hoping for is someone to say 1) "no, you're wrong, because..."; 
2) "wait x number of years and we'll
be there"; or 3) "if you don't like coding, use a different tool."


1) No you're wrong.  LyX is a front end, designed to make LaTeX
easier, which it has successed at.  Its suffering from mission-shift
at the moment as more people take it up.  Due to the sciences bias in
the initial user group / development group, LyX and LaTeX achieve
science results with greater ease.  I anticipate this will change as
more humanities users take LyX/LaTeX up.

2) Wait x number of years and we'll be closer to a front-end for more
LaTeX features.  Though this may mean tkJuraBibStyleEditor as a device
independent GUI ap, rather than the features embedded in LyX itself.
Or it may mean tkLyX_Semi_WYSIWYM/WYSIWYG_StyleEditor instead of a
style editor within LyX itself.  Or it may mean
LyX_DocumentTemplate_Humanities_History_ChicagoFootnotes_UniversityFoo_DeptBar_StyleBok
etc.  Who knows?  It depends on the contributions from the community
of users and developers between now and year X.

What I do know is the age, stability and support for LyX/LaTeX/TeX
means that your commitment is unlikely to be wasted by technological
or commercial change: Company X won't fail and no longer support their
document format.

3) If you don't like the limitations of LyX as it currently is, and
don't like the bug/feature resolution system of ERT / feature
requesting / solving it yourself and sharing the results, don't use
LyX.  The community development culture is unlikely to change.


This whole thing is extremely frustrating as I can see the huge promise that 
the LaTeX/Lyx system can offer, but it's
awfully rough beneath the surface.


Yes.  I found that LyX was great to write undergraduate / honours work
in without a bibliography / citation manager.  Now that I'm working on
journal articles and my doctoral dissertation, I'm finding that I'm
coming up against new challenges with regards to citation management.
1.4.3 provides far more suitable and easy solutions than 1.3.7 did for
me.  It also took a large amount of time to find the right device
independent tools for bibliography management, and the ones which
suited my academic needs over a career.  I found this a more useful
investment of my time than the repeated wordprocessor crashes and
frustrations of EndNote.  Your situation may differ.

Finally, LyX development works more like a community of knowledge than
a commercial developer.  People produce new ideas, or reproduce old
ideas, and share them for free.  The cost is of course, people may not
have developed the ideas you need, yet.

yours,
Sam R.
--
I will give you Tacos, such Tacos as you have never seen.

Re: Using lyx and multibib

[Sam Russell]

Chris wrote,
 I´ would like to use Lyx (1.3.6-1 for Windows) and the package multibib
 together to get three different bibliographys, but it dosnt work.

I'm in a similar situation with jurabib and multiple bibliographies.

(History requires Archival documents, Primary and Secondary sources to
be seperate tc.)

My solution when LyX won't produce bibliography stuff the way I like
it is to export to LaTeX, like so:

LyX myfile
FileExportLatex

Windows StartRunCommand.com

Command.com
d:
cd \lyxdocs
latex lyxdocs
bibtex8 -W myfile
bibtex8 -W arch
bibtex8 -W gedr
latex myfile
latex myfile
yap mylyx

yours,
Sam R.

Re: Using lyx and multibib

[Sam Russell]

Chris wrote,
 I´ would like to use Lyx (1.3.6-1 for Windows) and the package multibib
 together to get three different bibliographys, but it dosnt work.

I'm in a similar situation with jurabib and multiple bibliographies.

(History requires Archival documents, Primary and Secondary sources to
be seperate tc.)

My solution when LyX won't produce bibliography stuff the way I like
it is to export to LaTeX, like so:

LyX myfile
FileExportLatex

Windows StartRunCommand.com

Command.com
d:
cd \lyxdocs
latex lyxdocs
bibtex8 -W myfile
bibtex8 -W arch
bibtex8 -W gedr
latex myfile
latex myfile
yap mylyx

yours,
Sam R.

Re: Using lyx and multibib

[Sam Russell]

Chris wrote,
> I´ would like to use Lyx (1.3.6-1 for Windows) and the package multibib
> together to get three different bibliographys, but it dosnt work.

I'm in a similar situation with jurabib and multiple bibliographies.

(History requires Archival documents, Primary and Secondary sources to
be seperate )

My solution when LyX won't produce bibliography stuff the way I like
it is to export to LaTeX, like so:

LyX "myfile"
File>Export>Latex

Windows Start>Run>Command.com

Command.com
d:
cd \lyxdocs
latex lyxdocs
bibtex8 -W myfile
bibtex8 -W arch
bibtex8 -W gedr
latex myfile
latex myfile
yap mylyx

yours,
Sam R.

Fwd: Choice of fonts in LaTeX

[Sam Russell]

(I assumed the Reply-to: would be the list)

On 24/10/05, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Is there any typographical reason why you might want slanted instead of
 italic or vice-versa?

In the original edition describing TeX Knuth is very very strident
about the need for slanted fonts, the wave of the future.  To be
honest, slanted appears to be a very good way to differentiate
input/output in the typography of human-computer interaction.  Reading
early published versions of Knuth makes the typographic rationale
behind slanted clear.  Knuth also argues in METAFONT that slanted will
make it easier for typeface designers to produce multiple faces from a
single style.  Slanted also just feels forcefully, brutally,
ultramodern, like Bauhaus typefaces or London Underground.  I expect
to see early Soviet era designers appear from a montage, shouting in
slanted slogans of better typography through science.  If you want
your readers to expect the avantegarde of suprematism and
constructivism to burst out of your text, set in slanted.

Slanted is not very good at replacing the humanities uses of italics
(/Title/, /mild emphasis/, /foreign words in body text/, etc).  In
humanities texts slanted breaks rules regarding reader familiarity
with typesetting styles, it also breaks the aesthetic beauty of well
set type.  So if we go to the heart of Knuth's initial
research/engineering problem (beautiful typography), then the Slanted
type he pushes so hard in the late 1970s, at least in humanities,
works against him.

Personally, I find that there's a great deal of beauty in well
designed Italic faces.  At the level of readability, I also find the
difference in the format of characters (a, g, etc) provided  by
italic, acts as an extra cue for me that the text has a different
meaning (other than just the slant).

yours,
Sam R.

--
I will give you Tacos, such Tacos as you have never seen.


--
I will give you Tacos, such Tacos as you have never seen.

Re: Fwd: Choice of fonts in LaTeX

[Sam Russell]

On 25/10/05, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Knuth also argues in METAFONT that slanted will make it easier for
  typeface designers to produce multiple faces from a single style.

 So can they get a slanted face out of an MM font?

This is my recollection of Knuth's assertion[1].  Then again, those
kinds of big assertions often come with new products (I did it
overnight, the permutations were easy and attractive).  I've never
touched metafont, other than enjoying the beauty of its results,
computer modern.  I'd be interested in hearing if anyone else has made
beautiful families of fonts from metafont.

yours,
Sam R.

[1] Knuth, Donald E. /TeX and METAFONT: new directions in
typesetting/. Bedford, Mass. : Digital Press, 1979. (cyclostyled from
conference papers).

Fwd: Choice of fonts in LaTeX

[Sam Russell]

(I assumed the Reply-to: would be the list)

On 24/10/05, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Is there any typographical reason why you might want slanted instead of
 italic or vice-versa?

In the original edition describing TeX Knuth is very very strident
about the need for slanted fonts, the wave of the future.  To be
honest, slanted appears to be a very good way to differentiate
input/output in the typography of human-computer interaction.  Reading
early published versions of Knuth makes the typographic rationale
behind slanted clear.  Knuth also argues in METAFONT that slanted will
make it easier for typeface designers to produce multiple faces from a
single style.  Slanted also just feels forcefully, brutally,
ultramodern, like Bauhaus typefaces or London Underground.  I expect
to see early Soviet era designers appear from a montage, shouting in
slanted slogans of better typography through science.  If you want
your readers to expect the avantegarde of suprematism and
constructivism to burst out of your text, set in slanted.

Slanted is not very good at replacing the humanities uses of italics
(/Title/, /mild emphasis/, /foreign words in body text/, etc).  In
humanities texts slanted breaks rules regarding reader familiarity
with typesetting styles, it also breaks the aesthetic beauty of well
set type.  So if we go to the heart of Knuth's initial
research/engineering problem (beautiful typography), then the Slanted
type he pushes so hard in the late 1970s, at least in humanities,
works against him.

Personally, I find that there's a great deal of beauty in well
designed Italic faces.  At the level of readability, I also find the
difference in the format of characters (a, g, etc) provided  by
italic, acts as an extra cue for me that the text has a different
meaning (other than just the slant).

yours,
Sam R.

--
I will give you Tacos, such Tacos as you have never seen.


--
I will give you Tacos, such Tacos as you have never seen.

Re: Fwd: Choice of fonts in LaTeX

[Sam Russell]

On 25/10/05, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Knuth also argues in METAFONT that slanted will make it easier for
  typeface designers to produce multiple faces from a single style.

 So can they get a slanted face out of an MM font?

This is my recollection of Knuth's assertion[1].  Then again, those
kinds of big assertions often come with new products (I did it
overnight, the permutations were easy and attractive).  I've never
touched metafont, other than enjoying the beauty of its results,
computer modern.  I'd be interested in hearing if anyone else has made
beautiful families of fonts from metafont.

yours,
Sam R.

[1] Knuth, Donald E. /TeX and METAFONT: new directions in
typesetting/. Bedford, Mass. : Digital Press, 1979. (cyclostyled from
conference papers).

Fwd: Choice of fonts in LaTeX

[Sam Russell]

(I assumed the Reply-to: would be the list)

On 24/10/05, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Is there any typographical reason why you might want slanted instead of
> italic or vice-versa?

In the original edition describing TeX Knuth is very very strident
about the need for slanted fonts, the wave of the future.  To be
honest, slanted appears to be a very good way to differentiate
input/output in the typography of human-computer interaction.  Reading
early published versions of Knuth makes the typographic rationale
behind slanted clear.  Knuth also argues in METAFONT that slanted will
make it easier for typeface designers to produce multiple faces from a
single style.  Slanted also just feels forcefully, brutally,
ultramodern, like Bauhaus typefaces or London Underground.  I expect
to see early Soviet era designers appear from a montage, shouting in
slanted slogans of better typography through science.  If you want
your readers to expect the avantegarde of suprematism and
constructivism to burst out of your text, set in slanted.

Slanted is not very good at replacing the humanities uses of italics
(/Title/, /mild emphasis/, /foreign words in body text/, etc).  In
humanities texts slanted breaks rules regarding reader familiarity
with typesetting styles, it also breaks the aesthetic beauty of well
set type.  So if we go to the heart of Knuth's initial
research/engineering problem (beautiful typography), then the Slanted
type he pushes so hard in the late 1970s, at least in humanities,
works against him.

Personally, I find that there's a great deal of beauty in well
designed Italic faces.  At the level of readability, I also find the
difference in the format of characters (a, g, etc) provided  by
italic, acts as an extra cue for me that the text has a different
meaning (other than just the slant).

yours,
Sam R.

--
I will give you Tacos, such Tacos as you have never seen.


--
I will give you Tacos, such Tacos as you have never seen.

Re: Fwd: Choice of fonts in LaTeX

[Sam Russell]

On 25/10/05, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > Knuth also argues in METAFONT that slanted will make it easier for
> > typeface designers to produce multiple faces from a single style.
>
> So can they get a slanted face out of an MM font?

This is my recollection of Knuth's assertion[1].  Then again, those
kinds of big assertions often come with new products (I did it
overnight, the permutations were easy and attractive).  I've never
touched metafont, other than enjoying the beauty of its results,
computer modern.  I'd be interested in hearing if anyone else has made
beautiful families of fonts from metafont.

yours,
Sam R.

[1] Knuth, Donald E. /TeX and METAFONT: new directions in
typesetting/. Bedford, Mass. : Digital Press, 1979. (cyclostyled from
conference papers).