On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 03:15:13PM +0200, hoh...@arcor.de wrote:
>
> Peter Schaffter wrote (Thu, 27 Mar 2014 19:29:13
> -0400):
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> > >
>
> > KP posits that the solution to getting it right is to scan the
> > whole paragraph. The number of words o
Werner LEMBERG wrote (Fri, 28 Mar 2014 06:44:19 +0100
(CET)):
> Well, *if* someone is going to implement a better line breaking
> algorithm, it should be the best available, and not a compromise.
> Changes are necessary in any case...
A clear word for mission statement. BTW.
> > Like Doug, I sm
Peter Schaffter wrote (Thu, 27 Mar 2014 19:29:13
-0400):
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> >
> > > So there are two readily-available methods: varying
> > > letter-spacing, or varying inter-word spacing.
> >
>
> Not "or" -- "and". Most times, I opt for word-spacing adjustments.
Hi,
Dave Kemper wrote:
> The more relevant question is, *can* a line-by-line algorithm, with
> some tweaks, produce results on par with an algorithm that considers
> the entire paragraph?
>
> I can't answer this definitively, of course, but I suspect it cannot.
If one is 15% of the implementatio
On 3/27/14, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> is it really necessary to scan an entire paragraph
> to determine optimal linebreaks if judiciously adjusted word-and
> letter-spacing on a line-by-line basis can produce similar results?
The more relevant question is, *can* a line-by-line algorithm, with
some
> We all agree groff's paragraph formatting needs an overhaul, but is
> Knuth the right way to go?
This is an interesting question that needs research, I guess. What
alternatives do exist?
> Overall, the principle [of KP] is sound. If we could wave a magic
> wand and get groff to do this, I do
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 19:29:13 -0400
> Peter Schaffter wrote:
>
> > Would it not make more sense to have groff, more or less as-is,
> > shoulder more of the burden of what we do manually, *using the same
> > strategies*, to achieve better *lines*, rath
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 19:29:13 -0400
Peter Schaffter wrote:
> Would it not make more sense to have groff, more or less as-is,
> shoulder more of the burden of what we do manually, *using the same
> strategies*, to achieve better *lines*, rather than focussing on
> the whole paragraph?
This is an e
Tadziu --
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> I tried to approximate your typeset example, groff did
> hyphenate those words. Maybe we have different defaults?
We do. Didn't cross my mind to change them. One of those things
you tend to forget about over time.
At any rate, I want t
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
>
> > So there are two readily-available methods: varying
> > letter-spacing, or varying inter-word spacing.
>
Not "or" -- "and". Most times, I opt for word-spacing adjustments.
The reason for my comparison was only to show that deft use of
letters
> Actually, no. This is groff behaving at its default.
Strange. The two loosest lines in the left column would
be somewhat alleviated by hyphenating "given" (loosening
that comparatively tight line and tightening the very loose
previous line), and "recourse" (likewise). Indeed, when
I tried to
On 3/27/14, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> I think what we all want from groff is a better approach to
> automatic formatting for general purpose, the-client-doesn't-want-
> to-pay-a-fortune typesetting. Concurrently, we don't want to fight
> with the program when fine typography is called for.
That's
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014, Werner Lemberg wrote:
> Well, as Tadziu's example shows, if you simply allow some squeezing of
> the *inter-word* distances, you can get very nice results. If this
> isn't good enough, some *minimum* letterspacing might be applied, as
> done by pdftex.
>
> Not doing the form
Steve --
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014, Steve Izma wrote:
> I'm puzzled too. Some discussions I have had lately with other
> typographers indicate a general support for letterspacing. One
> font designer even suggested that there is a commonly accepted
> limit to the amount of kerning or morticing -- unfor
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
>
> > The grey is clearly superior to the unadjusted column.
>
> It appears to me that "No adjustment" column appears worse than
> it needs to because you're seriously inhibiting hyphenation...
Actually, no. This is groff behaving at its default. Th
>> I think many publishers (including the ones I work for) do not like
>> leaving two letters of a word before or after a break.
>
> I stand admonished. In German, it appears quite natural to split
> off two-letter pre- and suffixes, and the English hyphenation rules
> often allow it as well.
I
> I think many publishers (including the ones I work for) do not
> like leaving two letters of a word before or after a break.
I stand admonished. In German, it appears quite natural
to split off two-letter pre- and suffixes, and the English
hyphenation rules often allow it as well. I agree tha
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:13:54PM +0100, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Groff] Letterspacing
>
> > The grey is clearly superior to the unadjusted column.
>
> It appears to me that "No adjustment" column appears worse than
> it needs to because you'
> This also raises the question of whether a paragraph-at-once
> algorithm could handle such single-line adjustments without being
> unwieldly or slow. I've never been able to get this kind of
> precision in TeX, as I've mentioned before; it's much faster to do
> it in groff.
My guess is that co
> I'm still puzzled by Werner's blanket dismissal of letterspacing.
Well, as Tadziu's example shows, if you simply allow some squeezing of
the *inter-word* distances, you can get very nice results. If this
isn't good enough, some *minimum* letterspacing might be applied, as
done by pdftex.
Not
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:15:34PM -0400, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> Subject: [Groff] Letterspacing
>
> I'm still puzzled by Werner's blanket dismissal of letterspacing.
> Attached is a pdf of side-by-side columns of identical justified
> text. In the RH column, 14 of
On 27/03/14 13:41:32, Doug McIlroy wrote:
Neither column of the side-by-side display looks very good to me. The
normal-spacing column is definitely thin. The reduced-spaceing column
is patchy--thick in places and thin (by comparison) in others. I
prefer unjustified text to either. Besides ha
Neither column of the side-by-side display looks very
good to me. The normal-spacing column is definitely
thin. The reduced-spaceing column is patchy--thick
in places and thin (by comparison) in others. I
prefer unjustified text to either. Besides having
more uniform density, it offers landmarks--t
> So there are two readily-available methods: varying
> letter-spacing, or varying inter-word spacing.
To follow up on the comparison, here's mine
(using only word-spacing, no letter-spacing).
Overall, I think I'm with Werner on the issue of letterspacing.
I usually find it visible (and irritat
> The grey is clearly superior to the unadjusted column.
It appears to me that "No adjustment" column appears worse than
it needs to because you're seriously inhibiting hyphenation...
On 26-Mar-2014 21:15:34 Peter Schaffter wrote:
> I'm still puzzled by Werner's blanket dismissal of letterspacing.
> Attached is a pdf of side-by-side columns of identical justified
> text. In the RH column, 14 of the 27 lines of text have been
> adjusted with letterspacing, some loosened, some ti
26 matches
Mail list logo
