kbb@nancy.UUCP (02/13/87)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Fonts, TeX, and typeshop quality.
Expires:
References:
Sender:
Reply-To: kbb@brunix.UUCP (Karl Berry.)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords:
Reply-To: kbb%cs.brown.edu@csnet-relay
I appreciate the input of someone who actually works for a professional
typesetting-software making company (the recent article from the
SoftQuad research director). It makes for a welcome change from some of
the other not-so-informed postings (including my own) in the area of
``what's the best typesetting program?''
What I still don't know (and can't figure out) is (a) why ditroff was
chosen instead of TeX for the basis of a new program, and (b) why TeX
wasn't sufficient in the first place. I'm a typesetter for a newspaper,
working on a Compugraphic system, and TeX would make the job there
several times easier. You can't even advance by a linespace, use units
interchangeably (sometimes it has to have points, sometimes picas, and
heaven help you if you mix up what it wants when) and so on and so
forth. I have a friend who was a typesetter for one of the top ad houses
in San Francisco, who used an Alphatype CRS, the top of the line -- and
she tells me TeX would be easier to use than that, too. (Er, when I say
`TeX', I don't mean plain TeX, LaTeX, or whatever, but initex loaded
with the right macros, probably a job of quite a while to create -- but
not very long when compared to developing a new base program! It may
even take some modifications of the source code, but I wouldn't think
very many.)
The major problem with TeX is that it's not interactive enough, because
Knuth didn't want to design it to run on a high-quality display, since
it was supposed to be able to be used just about anywhere. But changing
it so that the depth, point size, and so forth were displayed
automatically wouldn't be that big a deal -- and being able to say, e.g.,
\vbox to 3.2in{\vfil ... \vfil} would solve a lot of problems with ads
that now have to be done by ad (making sure it's 3.2" deep, centered in
the space, etc, etc.)
Of course, Computer Modern is not an ideal typeface for many
applications. But nothing in TeX ties it to Computer Modern, despite
some recent protestations to the contrary. And it can drive phototypesetters
as well as digital devices.
So, anyway, why not TeX for ``real'' typesetting? My personal opinion is
that it's been ignored by the industry because it's *free*, or nearly.
My newspaper paid around *$10,000* for the rotten software it has now.
TeX costs about $100. Maybe $150. If TeX ever caught on, a lot of
companies would go down the tubes. And, of course, they have a lot of
effort invested in the old ways. I wonder how popular Gutenberg was with
the scribes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two other brief things: the Computers & Typesetting series was indeed,
as der Mouse supposed, not printed on a 300 dpi laser printer. I believe
I recall a message from Dave Fuchs saying that volume E, at least, was
printed on an APS-5, resolution about 1500 dpi. Correct me, please,
someone from Stanford.
About converting PostScript to Metafont: good luck. PostScript's basic
idea is to use scalable outlines in describing fonts. Metafont does have
some outline commands (their lack in Metafont79 was, it seems, a major
problem) but I think the primary orientation is to use pens. Whatever
kind of conversion program you write would probably come up with pretty
horrible results. Better to just deal with each in its own idiom, and
try to describe the PostScript fonts you want in Metafont, but without
automation taking a hand. (Of course, the fonts aren't really
PostScript's, they're leased from Mergenthaler and ITC, but it seemed
more natural to say it the first way.)
The end. Please don't quote this message in large part, if you want to
followup. Mail is most welcome.
Karl kbb%cs.brown.edu@cs.net.relay (Arpa, CSNet)
{decvax, ihnp4}!brunix!kbb