Path: utzoo!edhnic!becker!bdb
From: bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: O'Reilly X Books
Message-ID: <133@becker.UUCP>
Date: 15 Sep 88 17:20:10 GMT
References: <469@pan.UUCP> <1163@ora.UUCP>
Reply-To: bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker)
Organization: G. T. S., Toronto, Ontario
Lines: 38

In article <1163@ora.UUCP> tim@ora.UUCP (Tim O'Reilly) writes:
>>
>> [ user complaint about perfect-bound X books. ]
>>
>                               We've always done comb-bound
>books in the past, for precisely the reason that they lay
>flat.  However, we had feedback from a number of readers (as
>well as from bookstores) that they considered them less
>professional ("not quite a real book"), and generally less desirable.
>
>We're more than willing to publish our books in comb-bound
>format if the general consensus is that this is preferable.
>--
>Tim O'Reilly (617) 527-4210
>O'Reilly & Associates, Inc., Publishers of Nutshell Handbooks
>981 Chestnut Street, Newton, MA 02164
>UUCP:	uunet!ora!tim      ARPA:   tim@ora.uu.net

	This is a followup to have a small discussion of the
	merits (or otherwise) of the following variation of
	comb-binding that is sometimes used nowadays.

	A couple of things might add to the 'professional' look
	of comb-bindings -

	1). Use wire which looks better & is more durable;
	2). Fold the cover-stock over the open end & round the
	    back - this allows a 'spine' to print title info,
	    and the book is shelved 'backwards'. Note that the
	    smaller bulk of wire makes this more feasible than
	    plastic.

Cheers,
-- 
Bruce Becker        Toronto, Ont.
Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, becker@humvax.UUCP, becker@ziebmef.UUCP
BitNet:   BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET
"Once we got the sun going, the planets were a cinch" -pwzygphphp