rad@vulcan.anu.edu.au (Robin Davies) (06/27/91)
For a few purposes TeX output is just too pretty. Has anyone written a style option for LaTeX which would produce something more or less as ugly as typewriter output (left justification, double spacing, \tt, underlining for emphasis, etc.)? I've looked around a bit but couldn't see anything appropriate. Thanks, -- Robin Davies rad@vulcan.anu.edu.au
schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Joachim Schrod) (06/27/91)
In article <rad.678000303@vulcan>, rad@vulcan.anu.edu.au (Robin Davies) writes: > For a few purposes TeX output is just too pretty. I'm just curious: for which purposes? I just asked because ``pretty'' is (IMHO) the wrong term. A document should first be readable. If this readibility is considered pretty, fine! And why does one want to produce an unreadable document? (And in fact, the rest of your posting describes a style creating an unreadable document!) -- Joachim =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Joachim Schrod Email: xitijsch@ddathd21.bitnet Computer Science Department Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany
ferguson@cs.rochester.edu (George Ferguson) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun27.112938.21202@infoserver.th-darmstadt.de> xitijsch@ddathd21.bitnet (Joachim Schrod) writes: >In article <rad.678000303@vulcan>, rad@vulcan.anu.edu.au (Robin Davies) writes: > >> For a few purposes TeX output is just too pretty. > >I'm just curious: for which purposes? >I just asked because ``pretty'' is (IMHO) the wrong term. A document >should first be readable. If this readibility is considered pretty, fine! In response to the original query for a less pretty Tex macro package, I have successfully used the "scriptex" package by Adrian McCarthy (e-mail address unknown). These macros floated past the net (alt.sources?) some time ago, but unfortunately do not contain any pointers to where the author can be contacted, since I didn't save the whole article. The docs refer to ymir.claremont.edu, so you might try there. Lacking that, I could probably make them available myself, if the original author doesn't come forward. This is a very nice package. In addition to providing macros to describe a script in logical terms, it generates various lists automagically if desired. I made a couple of small tweaks to "improve" the output within the confines of the screenplay format (basically to get less continued dialogs, at the expense of more ragged bottoms). I think one could certainly use it to get plain "manuscript" output, without the script features. Of course, using tt font with frenchspacing gets you close, this package does a good job of duplicating the effect of the "carriage bell" or "hot zone" at the end of a line. 'Nuff said. In response to the second question about why one would want to circumvent TeX's nice output, I quote from the documentation: Screenplay manuscripts are typed, not typeset. With computers becoming even more ubiquitous, aspiring scriptwriters are more likely to be submitting nice-looking documents formatted with Macintoshes\tm\ and PC's and the like. For better or worse, agents take typewritten manuscripts more seriously, according to Richard Walter in {\sl Screenwriting: The Art, Craft and Business of Film and Television Writing}. Therefore, \ST\ had to be able to generate documents which look typewritten. ... The screenplay format is so evolved that~--- averaged out over a half-hour TV show, a two-hour movie, or a four-night miniseries~--- one page is one minute of screen time. This may sound absurdly arbitrary, but it seems to hold true. One page averages to one minute. Agents and producers realize that this is only a rule-of-thumb, but this rule does drive decisions. Production costs are often estimated from the page-count, so it is important that the conventions are followed. ... If you are serious about submitting your work to an agent, you are better off knocking his/her socks off with a good story than your own interpretation of manuscript format. So you see, sometimes one wants the convenience of electronically-stored and manipulated text, but is forced to produce ugly output, for better or for worse. George -- George Ferguson ARPA: ferguson@cs.rochester.edu University of Rochester UUCP: {decvax,rutgers}!rochester!ferguson Rochester NY 14627-0226 VOX: (716) 275-2527
giguere@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun27.112938.21202@infoserver.th-darmstadt.de> xitijsch@ddathd21.bitnet (Joachim Schrod) writes: >In article <rad.678000303@vulcan>, rad@vulcan.anu.edu.au (Robin Davies) writes: >> For a few purposes TeX output is just too pretty. > >I'm just curious: for which purposes? > >I just asked because ``pretty'' is (IMHO) the wrong term. A document >should first be readable. If this readibility is considered pretty, fine! > And why does one want to produce an unreadable document? (And in >fact, the rest of your posting describes a style creating an >unreadable document!) "Unreadable" to you, perhaps. A lot of editors, however, can't stand receiving a typeset manuscript. They WANT the doublespaced lines, the fixed pitch font, the ragged lines. Partly so they can do word estimates (it doesn't seem to matter if you tell them how many words there are) and so they can do corrections. That's why Joachim was asking for a "manuscript.sty" file... -- Eric Giguere giguere@csg.UWaterloo.CA Unlike the cleaning lady, I have to do Windows.
jeffrey@cs.chalmers.se (Alan Jeffrey) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.112938.21202@infoserver.th-darmstadt.de> xitijsch@ddathd21.bitnet (Joachim Schrod) writes: > And why does one want to produce an unreadable document? (And in >fact, the rest of your posting describes a style creating an >unreadable document!) Because what makes a readable document for some purposes makes it completely useless for others. In particular, normally emphasis or bold material, or shifts into Greek, or the difference between \Sigma and \sum should be fairly subtle, and should only be obvious to people looking out for it. But if you're sending a ms to a compositor, the last thing you want is to send a subtle ms, you want to send one that shouts `This heading is in bold!' or `This is a summation, not a Sigma!' If you submit typeset manuscript to a compositor, they are not going to love you for it. On the subject of an ms.sty, the main problem is getting the fonts together. As DEK pointed out, if you want to take things like underlining seriously, you need a separate font for it, especially when you start using full markup and need things like wavy-underlining and triple-underlining. There's also real headaches with mathematics, which you don't want to know about. But as a few examples: Let $a$ be a pudding should appear as Let _a_ be a pudding Let $x$ be a pudding should appear as Let x be a pudding Then $f(a)$ is a box should appear as Then f(a) is a box Then $fa$ is a box should appear as Then _fa_ is a box Obviously, this is completely impossible to generate by machine, so you're better off making do with every bit of mathematics underlined. Which isn't what the compositor is used to seeing, and therefore takes more time, and therefore takes more money. One of these days, unless anyone beats me to it (please do) I'll get round to sticking together a full family of cmtt fonts with various sorts of underlining, and put together a ms.sty to go with it. But it'll be a lot of work, and it won't get done until next year sometime. Cheers, Alan. -- Alan Jeffrey Tel: +46 31 72 10 98 jeffrey@cs.chalmers.se Department of Computer Sciences, Chalmers University, Gothenburg, Sweden
mtanner@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Michael C. Tanner) (06/29/91)
George Ferguson (ferguson@cs.rochester.edu) writes about why you might want ugly manuscripts (if you're writing a script, producers are used to it). I have also been told by editors that if you are submitting to them, say short fiction or novels, they would much rather see typewriter-looking stuff because they find it easier to read. Whether they are right in the abstract about what's easy or hard to read, what matters is their perception. If they turn off to your work immediately because of the fancy tex/latex look, you lose, no matter how many studies you can cite about how much easier it is to read. But I think an editors who read hundreds of pages of manuscript a week (or a day, whatever) should know what's easy or hard to read *for them*, and that's what counts. -- mike
teexdwu@ioe.lon.ac.uk (DOMINIK WUJASTYK) (06/30/91)
In article <4653@undis.cs.chalmers.se> jeffrey@cs.chalmers.se (Alan Jeffrey) writes: > >On the subject of an ms.sty, the main problem is getting the fonts >together. As DEK pointed out, if you want to take things like >underlining seriously, you need a separate font for it, especially >when you start using full markup and need things like wavy-underlining >and triple-underlining. There's also real headaches with mathematics, >which you don't want to know about. But as a few examples: > > Let $a$ be a pudding should appear as Let _a_ be a pudding > Let $x$ be a pudding should appear as Let x be a pudding > Then $f(a)$ is a box should appear as Then f(a) is a box > Then $fa$ is a box should appear as Then _fa_ is a box > >Obviously, this is completely impossible to generate by machine, so >you're better off making do with every bit of mathematics underlined. >Which isn't what the compositor is used to seeing, and therefore takes >more time, and therefore takes more money. > >One of these days, unless anyone beats me to it (please do) I'll get >round to sticking together a full family of cmtt fonts with various >sorts of underlining, and put together a ms.sty to go with it. But >it'll be a lot of work, and it won't get done until next year >sometime. Most of this has been done already, well, by Don Hosek. See his cmpica fonts, on ymir. These are variants of cmtt, in versions that include having each character underlined, and again, having each character having an under-squiggle (i.e., bold markup), and the right ligatures for quote marks and hyphens. So you can type using ordinary TeX conventions (\it, \bf, '', ---, etc.) and if you define \it to be cmpicaunderlined (I forget it's real name) etc., the outcome is almost exactly like a typed and marked-up MS. Math is another ball game. Dominik