Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Future state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On 2011-10-28 21:02, Zdenek Wagner wrote: 2011/10/28: On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, William Adams wrote: majority of documents are created using GUI tools. What use cases are better served by batch mode, and in what cases is TeX used by default because of available GUI tools refuse to play. Large database publications. Variable data printing. Also, anything where documents end up checked into the source control and configuration management systems used for software development. It's really nice to be able to compile my TeX documents along with my code. I can't do that with GUI tools. Documents being written by several people in cooperation in real time (usually living in a versioning system) Documents that have to be rendered from sources on several different platforms Documents that have to be rendered from sources years later Documents containing math Documents created on-the-fly by a web service Documents produced by people with motor or vision disabilities which make it hard for them to use a WYSIWYG/GUI tool. (I have both a motor disability and some vision difficulties, but that shouldn't be a requirement for caring about the issue.) BTW: is there a symmary of Xe(La)TeX/LuaTeX differences somewhere? I can't say that I'm wild about the prospect of having to learn another programming language on top of LaTeX to get things working. This said I use perlTeX quite a bit, so I might have a gain in learning Lua(TeX) all the same. /bpj -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Future state of XeTeX in TeXLive
2011/10/29 Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) : > > > Chris Travers wrote: > >> I think you are assuming a lot about knowledge of book design. The >> LaTeX styles out of the box are a bit formal. I think the margins are >> too wide, and I prefer different fonts But I would hardly call >> them "ugly" ... > > OK. one quote from my 1993 paper "Book Design for TeX Users, part 1", > and then I shut up and let others debate the point if they wish : > You are right, I remember your lectures for CSTUG. When I started to play with LaTeX 20 years ago, I saw that the documents look ugly but I did not know why. After a few lectures I learned the reason. And fortunatelly when typesetting the first few books the publisher gave me another book from the same series and I had to preserve the graphical design. Thus I have learned how to tweak LaTeX styles. What is good on LaTeX is that the author can type the document using the prefabricated (ugly) classes and they are rendered somehow, so that the author can work on the text. In the meantime a typographer designs a package or a class implementing required graphical design by redefining the standard macros. When it is finished, just \documentclass and/or \usepackage are chganged and page breaks are hand tuned. I have also prepared classes/packages for a few companies. The user know standard LaTeX and do not wish to learn new macros. A typographer invented the graphical layout be he does not know TeX. I was just a LaTeX programmer who converted the layout to a new definitions of \chapter, \section etc. Samples of my 3 books are displayed on http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz/vsechna.editina.tajemstvi/ http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz/chromozom46yb/ http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz/sedmero.dracich.srdci/ Everything is in Czech only, the link to a sample in PDF is almost at the end of the page, look for "ukázku" or "ukázka ke stažení". The colophon says that the book was typeset in pdfLaTeX, the link to the colophon in PDF is "v tiráži". And the colophon contains URL of TeX Live. >> Knuth, in his closing exhortation, wrote: "GO FORTH now and >> create masterpieces of the publishing art." Nowhere, so far as I can >> trace, did he write: "and let every one of them shriek 'TEX' from every >> page". . . > > http://www.ntg.nl/maps/19/10.pdf > http://www.ntg.nl/maps/19/11.pdf > > ** Phil. > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- Zdeněk Wagner http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/ http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Future state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: > Mu EUR 0,02 : > > Chris Travers wrote: > >> A couple things I'd point out. TeX makes it possible to create >> beautiful books. LaTeX makes it possible to create beautiful books >> easily. > > but encourages users to create ugly ones. > > Why do I say this ? Well, a user wishing to typeset a book > using TeX has to /think/, and, having thought, will almost certainly > come up with a better design than LaTeX offers out of the box. > > A LaTeX user, on the other hand, will -- until he or she becomes > sufficiently skilled and informed to know better -- almost certainly > just use one of the canned styles based on Computer Modern with > excessive white space that LaTeX provides by default. This is a key issue -- to get a larger pool of people passionate about making beautiful books you have to start by showing them the difference. I see many young people who are passionate about their clothing and am surprised at how many actually want to design their own clothes. Clothing designs can be viewed on TV, text artifacts not so much. Kids' school notebook doodles show something about their interests. When I was in school the boys doodled hot rods and girls horses, now I see doodles of clothing (girls) and characters for video games (boys). I wonder if part of the problem today is the sheer number of ways we make text artifacts. There are tweets, texting, email, blogs, web pages, essays and reports produced for schoolwork, then papers, manuals, reports, proposals, resumes, and for some, books. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Future state of XeTeX in TeXLive
Chris Travers wrote: I think you are assuming a lot about knowledge of book design. The LaTeX styles out of the box are a bit formal. I think the margins are too wide, and I prefer different fonts But I would hardly call them "ugly" ... OK. one quote from my 1993 paper "Book Design for TeX Users, part 1", and then I shut up and let others debate the point if they wish : Knuth, in his closing exhortation, wrote: “GO FORTH now and create masterpieces of the publishing art.” Nowhere, so far as I can trace, did he write: “and let every one of them shriek ‘TEX’ from every page”. . . http://www.ntg.nl/maps/19/10.pdf http://www.ntg.nl/maps/19/11.pdf ** Phil. -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Future state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: > Mu EUR 0,02 : > > Chris Travers wrote: > >> A couple things I'd point out. TeX makes it possible to create >> beautiful books. LaTeX makes it possible to create beautiful books >> easily. > > but encourages users to create ugly ones. > > Why do I say this ? Well, a user wishing to typeset a book > using TeX has to /think/, and, having thought, will almost certainly > come up with a better design than LaTeX offers out of the box. > > A LaTeX user, on the other hand, will -- until he or she becomes > sufficiently skilled and informed to know better -- almost certainly > just use one of the canned styles based on Computer Modern with > excessive white space that LaTeX provides by default. > I think you are assuming a lot about knowledge of book design. The LaTeX styles out of the box are a bit formal. I think the margins are too wide, and I prefer different fonts But I would hardly call them "ugly" compared to a lot of what gets put out by professional presses these days. Indeed one of the things I did when designing my book was I carefully went through the default styles, not only with an eye for what I wanted to change but also with an eye for what I wanted to keep. I then went through a stack of books with an eye for design, deciding what design elements I liked or didn't like. The result was a book design I really like. My editor initially suggested a ragged right edge (because word processes have terrible kerning) but after he saw the output decided that this was good justified. The biggest hazard of doing this though isn't that you will produce an ugly book. It's that you will look at every other book you pick up first from a design perspective and then only later get around to content :-P. Best Wishes, Chris Travers -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Future state of XeTeX in TeXLive
Mu EUR 0,02 : Chris Travers wrote: A couple things I'd point out. TeX makes it possible to create beautiful books. LaTeX makes it possible to create beautiful books easily. but encourages users to create ugly ones. Why do I say this ? Well, a user wishing to typeset a book using TeX has to /think/, and, having thought, will almost certainly come up with a better design than LaTeX offers out of the box. A LaTeX user, on the other hand, will -- until he or she becomes sufficiently skilled and informed to know better -- almost certainly just use one of the canned styles based on Computer Modern with excessive white space that LaTeX provides by default. Philip Taylor -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Future state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:54 AM, George N. White III wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:00 AM, William Adams > wrote: >> On Oct 28, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Dominik Wujastyk wrote: >> >>> Personally, I would not mind if XeTeX went into maintenance mode. I like >>> such stability. It already has a great deal of functionality, probably >>> enough to last me the rest of my writing career. I do take Vafa's point, >>> though, that if future OS platforms break XeTeX, it would be nice to have >>> someone fix things up. >> >> Here in the U.S., it's almost time for United Way payroll deduction >> contributions to be allocated --- I've been donating to TUG for a couple of >> years, but would be willing to direct my TUG contribution to XeTeX >> maintenance if others would be similarly inclined. >> > > Money can help, but unless very big piles of it are available, it is > more critical to generate a passion for good typography in people who > have the techical abilities needed for the work. I conjecture that the > number of people with both the passion and abilities needed is > currently empty. Clearly there are many current xetex users with the > interest, and commercial software developers employ people to write > code to render texts using the MS and Apple API's, so there are also > people with the abilities. Some may not be able to contribute to > xetex by the terms of their employment, and some whose passion lies > with their employers products would not have considered contributing > to xetex. > > Knuth has made many outstanding contributions, but not the least is to > raise typography to the first rank of problems in computing. If you > want to create a pool of people with a passion for computer > typography, effort needs to go towards expanding awareness of Knuth's > work in typography and issues that remain. > > To get things started, here is my list: > > 0. Why is Tex still necessary? My impression is that Knuth hoped to > see his work used in more creative ways than TeX distros. Tex distros are nice toolbixes, but they don't begin to describe how TeX or the distro is used. See below for a list. One of the reasons I have been so pedantic about long-term support is that long-term support makes possible many creative uses. > > 1. Knuth wanted to create beautiful books, yet many distinctly > unbeautiful books are still being published. Lack of support for > font design size, too similar fonts used for text and maths (e.g., > same glyph for letter "a" and variable "a") contribute to lack of > beauty. I'm reminded of Knuth's early paper in which he analyzed > bugs in discarded decks of punched cards and found many examples of > errors resulting from failure to apply well-known principles taught in > into courses. A couple things I'd point out. TeX makes it possible to create beautiful books. LaTeX makes it possible to create beautiful books easily. > > 2. Knuth created his own fonts and tools and these are still part of > a TeX system. What problems are still present in the fonts and > support provided by modern GUI environments? A GUI environment is very efficient at displaying information to the user, but very bad at accepting input from a user. This is a fundamental problem with the GUI: mouse clicks provide less information to the computer than keystrokes. GUI's are popular because they provide more information to the user than a keyboard driven interface (whether like a CLI or a system like LaTeX). So from this perspective, professional, keyboard-driven environments will always beat out pretty displays for productivity. I've done my business logo in LaTeX, my book in LaTeX. My accounting system generates invoices using LaTeX. Sometimes I use graphical tools to do some things (diagrams are generally easier to do with xfig and then export to LaTeX, and then tweak in vim). TeX and friends are wonderful tools for creating beautiful documents. A second thing is that TeX typesetting is better than most things that are done in a GUI. Even where a GUI can be helpful (layout of some sorts of documents), it's so much nicer when one can embed LaTeX in frames (like using Scribus with LaTeX frames). > > 3. Knuth was concerned with maths. There are now many groups that > use TeX for documents that do not involved maths. What do the > descendants of TeX have that other general purpose tools lack? I am not in these circles and will leave it to others to advocate there. > > 4. Knuth was concerned primarily with typeset material. Since then > there have been developments in linearization/flattened maths for > communications, and math markup for web (html) documents. Markups are fine for describing a general layout but they don't do the typesetting any more than HTML micro-manages the kerning in your web browser. Even CSS with HTML doesn't provide the beautiful layout that LaTeX does. So as a typesetting engine, there is no reason not to use TeX and LaTeX where it ma
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Future state of XeTeX in TeXLive
2011/10/28 maxwell : > On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, William Adams wrote: >> majority of documents are created using GUI tools. What use cases >> are better served by batch mode, and in what cases is TeX used by >> default because of available GUI tools refuse to play. > > We have a process that starts with DocBook (XML) and gets converted to > XeLaTeX using the dblatex program. We have what I consider to be very good > reasons for this approach (I suppose some on this list might disagree), > including interacting with other XML-based processes, automatic tagging of > words for script, extracting various kinds of data (grammar rules to be > converted into parsers, examples to be converted into test cases for those > parsers, etc.). So yes, we use batch mode. > > I don't know how many other users of dblatex there are, but there seem to > be enough to justify its existence--we didn't create it, we were just lucky > to find it. (And also fortunate to need xelatex just as it had matured.) > Occasionally I need strictly formatted documents with a limited set of elements. For this purpose I define the structure in Relax NG and write an XSLT stylesheet for transformation to (Xe)LaTeX. I am just working on such a book that will be written in XML and typeset with XeLaTeX. > Mike Maxwell > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- Zdeněk Wagner http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/ http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Future state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, William Adams wrote: > majority of documents are created using GUI tools. What use cases > are better served by batch mode, and in what cases is TeX used by > default because of available GUI tools refuse to play. We have a process that starts with DocBook (XML) and gets converted to XeLaTeX using the dblatex program. We have what I consider to be very good reasons for this approach (I suppose some on this list might disagree), including interacting with other XML-based processes, automatic tagging of words for script, extracting various kinds of data (grammar rules to be converted into parsers, examples to be converted into test cases for those parsers, etc.). So yes, we use batch mode. I don't know how many other users of dblatex there are, but there seem to be enough to justify its existence--we didn't create it, we were just lucky to find it. (And also fortunate to need xelatex just as it had matured.) Mike Maxwell -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Future state of XeTeX in TeXLive
2011/10/28 : > On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, William Adams wrote: >> > majority of documents are created using GUI tools. What use cases >> > are better served by batch mode, and in what cases is TeX used by >> > default because of available GUI tools refuse to play. >> >> Large database publications. Variable data printing. > > Also, anything where documents end up checked into the source control > and configuration management systems used for software development. It's > really nice to be able to compile my TeX documents along with my code. I > can't do that with GUI tools. Documents being written by several people in cooperation in real time (usually living in a versioning system) Documents that have to be rendered from sources on several different platforms Documents that have to be rendered from sources years later Documents containing math Documents created on-the-fly by a web service (Just for comparison: a few years ago it was my job to produce a printed book from database data where authors did not distinguish hyphens from dashes and put chemical formulas as H2SO4 on a line, not as H$_2$SO$_4$ because they do not know tex, do not have indexes on a keyboard and wrote it in the web form. I prepared an auxilliary file with replacements inside TeX macros and typesetting 80 pages book took me just 2 hours, including hand-tuning the page breaks. Now it is done by another man using InDesign, it takes him 4 weeks and he does not correct any of these errors.) > -- > Matthew Skala > msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca People before principles. > http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/ > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- Zdeněk Wagner http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/ http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Future state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, William Adams wrote: > > majority of documents are created using GUI tools. What use cases > > are better served by batch mode, and in what cases is TeX used by > > default because of available GUI tools refuse to play. > > Large database publications. Variable data printing. Also, anything where documents end up checked into the source control and configuration management systems used for software development. It's really nice to be able to compile my TeX documents along with my code. I can't do that with GUI tools. -- Matthew Skala msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca People before principles. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Future state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:54 PM, George N. White III wrote: > 0. Why is Tex still necessary? My impression is that Knuth hoped to > see his work used in more creative ways than TeX distros. Well, that's why LuaTeX is being developed, and the thought behind the development of ANT (though I haven't had much luck getting more recent versions of the latter compiled). > 1. Knuth wanted to create beautiful books, yet many distinctly > unbeautiful books are still being published. Lack of support for > font design size, too similar fonts used for text and maths (e.g., > same glyph for letter "a" and variable "a") contribute to lack of > beauty. I'm reminded of Knuth's early paper in which he analyzed > bugs in discarded decks of punched cards and found many examples of > errors resulting from failure to apply well-known principles taught in > into courses. Sturgeon's law. > 2. Knuth created his own fonts and tools and these are still part of > a TeX system. What problems are still present in the fonts and > support provided by modern GUI environments? I'd really like to see a super-font-family developed which encompasses _every_ possible axis and design option in NFSS. In GUI environments, selecting optical sizes is a pain, as is selecting character variations. > 3. Knuth was concerned with maths. There are now many groups that > use TeX for documents that do not involved maths. What do the > descendants of TeX have that other general purpose tools lack? Free licensing and easy operation from a simple text file and efficiency. > 4. Knuth was concerned primarily with typeset material. Since then > there have been developments in linearization/flattened maths for > communications, and math markup for web (html) documents. It would be neat to see a TeX variant which would make a .ePub, adding special characters (such as zero-width-non-joiners and discretionary hyphens) to improve rendering. > 5. Knuth built a compiler that is used in batch mode, but the > majority of documents are created using GUI tools. What use cases > are better served by batch mode, and in what cases is TeX used by > default because of available GUI tools refuse to play. Large database publications. Variable data printing. William -- William Adams senior graphic designer Fry Communications Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow. -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Future state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:00 AM, William Adams wrote: > On Oct 28, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Dominik Wujastyk wrote: > >> Personally, I would not mind if XeTeX went into maintenance mode. I like >> such stability. It already has a great deal of functionality, probably >> enough to last me the rest of my writing career. I do take Vafa's point, >> though, that if future OS platforms break XeTeX, it would be nice to have >> someone fix things up. > > Here in the U.S., it's almost time for United Way payroll deduction > contributions to be allocated --- I've been donating to TUG for a couple of > years, but would be willing to direct my TUG contribution to XeTeX > maintenance if others would be similarly inclined. > Money can help, but unless very big piles of it are available, it is more critical to generate a passion for good typography in people who have the techical abilities needed for the work. I conjecture that the number of people with both the passion and abilities needed is currently empty. Clearly there are many current xetex users with the interest, and commercial software developers employ people to write code to render texts using the MS and Apple API's, so there are also people with the abilities. Some may not be able to contribute to xetex by the terms of their employment, and some whose passion lies with their employers products would not have considered contributing to xetex. Knuth has made many outstanding contributions, but not the least is to raise typography to the first rank of problems in computing. If you want to create a pool of people with a passion for computer typography, effort needs to go towards expanding awareness of Knuth's work in typography and issues that remain. To get things started, here is my list: 0. Why is Tex still necessary? My impression is that Knuth hoped to see his work used in more creative ways than TeX distros. 1. Knuth wanted to create beautiful books, yet many distinctly unbeautiful books are still being published. Lack of support for font design size, too similar fonts used for text and maths (e.g., same glyph for letter "a" and variable "a") contribute to lack of beauty. I'm reminded of Knuth's early paper in which he analyzed bugs in discarded decks of punched cards and found many examples of errors resulting from failure to apply well-known principles taught in into courses. 2. Knuth created his own fonts and tools and these are still part of a TeX system. What problems are still present in the fonts and support provided by modern GUI environments? 3. Knuth was concerned with maths. There are now many groups that use TeX for documents that do not involved maths. What do the descendants of TeX have that other general purpose tools lack? 4. Knuth was concerned primarily with typeset material. Since then there have been developments in linearization/flattened maths for communications, and math markup for web (html) documents. 5. Knuth built a compiler that is used in batch mode, but the majority of documents are created using GUI tools. What use cases are better served by batch mode, and in what cases is TeX used by default because of available GUI tools refuse to play. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] [tex-live] Future state of XeTeX in TeXLive
On Oct 28, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Dominik Wujastyk wrote: > Personally, I would not mind if XeTeX went into maintenance mode. I like > such stability. It already has a great deal of functionality, probably > enough to last me the rest of my writing career. I do take Vafa's point, > though, that if future OS platforms break XeTeX, it would be nice to have > someone fix things up. Here in the U.S., it's almost time for United Way payroll deduction contributions to be allocated --- I've been donating to TUG for a couple of years, but would be willing to direct my TUG contribution to XeTeX maintenance if others would be similarly inclined. William -- William Adams senior graphic designer Fry Communications Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow. -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
