Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!uwvax!husc6!necntc!adelie!mirror!rs
From: rs@mirror.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: Fonts, professional typesetting, et
Message-ID: <212300002@mirror>
Date: Tue, 17-Feb-87 17:40:00 EST
Article-I.D.: mirror.212300002
Posted: Tue Feb 17 17:40:00 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Feb-87 18:48:07 EST
References: <12288@brunix.UUCP>
Lines: 84
Nf-ID: #R:brunix.UUCP:-1228800:mirror:212300002:000:4560
Nf-From: mirror.UUCP!rs    Feb 17 17:40:00 1987


Sigh; apparently I wasn't clear enough.

TeX can set newspaper type, of course.  It's just a gross waste of
cycles, that can more effectively used elsewhere.  Quoting the TeX
source, "the line-breaking problem can be regarded as a special case of
the problem of computing the shortest pah in an acyclic network."

I said TeX couldn't do things like properly kern shadow typefaces.
I didn't mean to imply that other software could:  just that in custom
typework (in particular, custom adwork) lots of stuff is still done by
hand because it has to be.  It doesn't matter if you call the data
bounding boxes, or kerning pairs:  if you need to get in between the
letters with an X-Acto knife, a computer solution will not do it.

>I challenge any other typesetting system to
>take a Russian phrase in standard Roman orthography and translate it into
>the appropriate Cyrillic characters completely automatically when the phrase
>is set in a Cyrillic font (heh heh).
I don't know enough about Russian to fully reply, but most modern
composition systems have very flexible ways of mapping the input
(working) character set to the output character set on a per-font
basis.  They have to have that capability in order to properly generate
output for the back-end typesetters.

I also said,
>As far as bookwork goes, TeX's output model is not powerful enough.
>Modern systems (e.g., Xyvision, Bedford, Texet, etc.) all have the
>ability to back-up and re-set the previous page using a different
>format if final page leaves you with a widow or such.
And saw this response:
>... this is just wrong.  TeX will reset a page as many times
>as you want (although it does have a [high] threshold to catch endless
>loops in the output stage).
Apparently I wasn't clear enough.  Suppose I am composing page "n" of my
book, and I find it's the last page of my chapter, and I just cannot
set it properly.  I want to go back to page "n-1" and rip it up so
that, e.g., instead of doing two-column format I do one-column format.
TeX cannot do this.  TeX's model is a linear flow through the composition
process:  linebreak, paragraph, vertical justification, output.  There is
no backward flow, to try out, e.g., a different page layout with different
linelengths and such.  Certainly not going back to previous pages.

Technically, a chapter beginning or a chapter ending are not exception
pages.  In psuedo-TeX, an exception page happens when I change my
style guide for one page becuase the collective badness is too great
using all the regular styles.  It should happen automatically, when
the system is unable to set things to meet my criteria.

I also said:
>Finally, the cost of $100 for TeX is a fictitious one.  You still have
>to buy a machine, terminals, train your users to use the machine's
>native OS and editor, etc.  You have to support them, and you have to
>deal with ongoing maintenance.  There are no firms out there that will
>install, write macros, and keep you supplied with maintenance releases
>(Knuth just found a TeX bug last month, so it isn't bug-free yet...).
>Try telling any large typehouse, let alone any large newspaper, that
>you've got a great new composition system for them that's cheap; the
>only thing missing is software support from the vendor.
And saw this response:
>Poor little baby, all alone in the big bad marketplace... [1/2 :-)]  You
>are, of course, ignoring the worldwide and highly active TeX user's group.
I'm a member of TUG, and am on the TexHax mailing list.  I'm well aware of the
user's group, and the types of questions they get, and problems they
answer, and work they're doing.

Continuing:
>How many vendors of turnkey (read: proprietary) systems are interested
>in giving you real support?  They've already got you by the privates, and
>they don't need to care anymore.
Oh come on.  You want to make a blanket condemnation of every vendor in
the type business, that's your right.  Buying a PC from FlyByNite, Inc.,
exactly the same thing as buying a million-dollar text-and-graphics system
from, Computer Composition (to pick a name).  Large type-houses, and
especially large newspapers, need systems with promised response time
and promised down time.  These things are usually written into their
RFP.  At worst case, the client has legal recourse.  Let's get off this
silly side issue, OK?

I'll be happy to response to E-mail on this topic.
--
Rich $alz					"Drug tests p**s me off"
Mirror Systems, Cambridge Massachusetts		rs@mirror.TMC.COM
{adelie, mit-eddie, ihnp4, harvard!wjh12, cca, cbosgd, seismo}!mirror!rs