summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/info/digests/texline/no11/books.tex
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'info/digests/texline/no11/books.tex')
-rw-r--r--info/digests/texline/no11/books.tex149
1 files changed, 149 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/info/digests/texline/no11/books.tex b/info/digests/texline/no11/books.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..09dacc7355
--- /dev/null
+++ b/info/digests/texline/no11/books.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
+\centerline{\bf Book Reviews}
+\smallskip
+\noindent
+`Raster Imaging and Digital Typography' is the
+proceedings of the workshop held in Lausanne in October
+last year, with some supplementary material from another
+workshop on font design systems held in 1987 in
+Sophia-Antipolis. The proceedings has two major sources of
+interest: the general subject matter of digital type
+design; and the fact that it was set with a \LaTeX\ style
+which emulates the Cambridge University Press house style.
+Several \TeX\ notables were involved in this production,
+Richard Southall, Rick Furuta, Philippe Louarn and Victor
+Ostromoukhov.
+
+The content is quite varied, with papers from Jaques
+Andr\'e, Roger Hersch, Neenie Billawala, Debra Adams, the
+Nanards, Peter Karow (of Ikarus fame), and Richard
+Southall. Although the \MF\ papers may have some greater
+interest, all of the papers have something to
+offer, although, as usual, some seem so esoteric that it is
+difficult to see applicability, even in the long term.
+Some are therefore `research' reports, rather than reports
+of application.
+
+Among the papers I found most interesting was Adams \&
+Southall's {\sl Problems of font quality assessment\/}
+which helps by establishing some terminology, but also
+establishes some criteria for quality assessment. Bruno
+Maag's {\sl Shape investigations with bitmapped
+characters\/} takes the four letters H, n, b and v and
+demonstrates the problems of realising these
+letters effectively at 300\,dpi. The historically minded
+will be fascinated by Ittai Joseph Tamari's {\sl
+Digitization of Hebrew fonts\/}, which looks at the
+evolution of printed Hebrew characters from 1475. A taste
+of the future may be present in Jacques Andr\'e and Bruno
+Borghi's {\sl Dynamic fonts} which starts where Knuth
+stops, taking the notions implicit in the Punk font and
+make it truly dynamic so that each character changes
+when it is used. No character is ever the same twice.
+So, some good stuff, and well worth a read.
+
+But: I was left rather unhappy about the production
+quality. First, the book is under-inked, a fact that
+Richard Southall volunteered when I talked to him about it.
+Basically, the fonts looked spindlier and more broken up
+than they should have. Don't point a finger at Computer
+Modern, since the book had been set in Times Roman. There
+is a large number of illustrations, many of which were
+pasted in. A sensible decision, but I would have prefered
+a little more consistency in caption styles. I was
+occasionally irritated by the editing, or perhaps the
+lack of editing. It is not clear to me whether
+`digitisation' and `digitalisation'
+are the same concept or not. The switch between `digitalisation'
+and `digitalization' is understandable, if annoying. The
+`s' `z' change is a common American\slash English change,
+but to see Tamari's paper use the `s'-form in the table of
+contents, but the `z'-form in the paper\dots\ The extreme
+difficulty of balancing facing pages was evident, and one
+paper in particular, Fahlander's, has an unforgivable
+number of widows and orphans. I could have wished an
+algorithm not to be split over pages 101--2, especially
+when elsewhere, page 60 has a 3\,cm band of white space at
+the bottom, for no discernable reason. I suppose the
+overfull box on page 164 is understandable (I think the
+overfull rules should be large and ugly for a book style),
+but the ?` on page 188 shrieked out at me. The footnote
+spread over pages 218--9 is unfortunate. I would have
+rewritten the text to get rid of that lonely line (that's
+what an editor is for). Lastly, it was easy to identify
+the hand of \LaTeX. The itemized lists in Peter Karow's
+paper soon gave the game away.
+
+Why do I make these petty criticisms? Because I expect
+nothing but the best from the combination of \LaTeX,
+Andr\'e, Southall, Furuta and Louarn. Obviously there is
+great merit in the timely production of this book. But
+perhaps with a little more care these blemishes could
+have been avoided.
+
+\begintt
+@proceedings{AndreHersch1989,
+editor={Jacques Andr\'e and Roger Hersch},
+title={Raster Imaging and Digital
+Typography},
+series={The Cambridge series on Electronic
+Publishing},
+year={1989},
+publisher={Cambridge University Press}
+isbn={0 521 37490 1}}
+\endtt
+
+\smallskip\noindent
+`Hyphenation' by Ronald McIntosh is a quirky little book.
+In a sense it is a justification of the work that he and
+Computer Hyphenation have done in creating `the
+Hyphenologist' software. It is full of fascinating
+details about the lowly, much abused, hyphen. It traces
+its origins and evolution and gives some delicious
+examples of excerable computer hyphenation. Naturally,
+the Hyphenologist does it right, but you would have to be
+very percipient to guess just how Hyphenologist does do
+it. Nevertheless, the set of rules for hyphenating in
+English, pages 60--6, do offer a starting place for the UK
+\TeX\ Users Group Working Party on hyphenation. The book
+has the flavour of enthusiasm, which makes it lots of fun
+and an excellent read.
+
+To help sow some doubt and
+division in the path of would-be hyphenators, consider
+the following: hyphenation for the following eight, fairly
+common words are taken from six English (not American)
+disctionaries. While you might optimistically expect only
+eight word divisions for the eight words, there are
+actually 30. How does \TeX\ fare? Not too badly. Here's
+the list:
+
+\centerline{\vbox{\halign{#\hfill&\quad#\hfill\cr
+\tt\char'134showhyphens&nearest matches\cr
+abid-ing & exact (3)\cr
+abo-li-tion & ab-o-li-tion (2)\cr
+au-toma-ton & au-tom-a-ton (2)\cr
+au-ton-omy & au-ton-o-my (2)\cr
+au-to-bi-og-ra-phy & exact (2)\cr
+il-licit & exact (1) il-lic-it (3)\cr
+il-log-i-cal & exact (1)\cr
+blud-geon & exact (2)\cr
+}}}
+
+\noindent Since the dictionaries cannot agree among
+themselves, and in fact have some strange notions, like
+hyphenating after a single letter, perhaps we are being a
+bit too hard on \TeX's normal rather conservative
+hyphenation.
+
+\begintt
+@book{McIntosh1990,
+author={Ronald McIntosh},
+title={Hyphenation},
+publisher={Computer Hyphenation Ltd},
+address={1 Campus Road, Bradford BD7 1HR},
+isbn={1 872757 01 4}
+price={\pounds4.95}}
+\endtt
+
+\author{\mwc}
+