From e0c6872cf40896c7be36b11dcc744620f10adf1d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Norbert Preining Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 13:46:59 +0900 Subject: Initial commit --- usergrps/uktug/baskervi/4_3/clark.tex | 430 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 430 insertions(+) create mode 100644 usergrps/uktug/baskervi/4_3/clark.tex (limited to 'usergrps/uktug/baskervi/4_3/clark.tex') diff --git a/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/4_3/clark.tex b/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/4_3/clark.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..d48c2fc23f --- /dev/null +++ b/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/4_3/clark.tex @@ -0,0 +1,430 @@ +\def\CJ{{\sc Cajun}} +\title{Malcolm's Gleanings} +\author[Malcolm Clark]{Malcolm Clark\\\texttt{m.clark@warwick.ac.uk}} +\begin{Article} + +\section{Macsyma} +A brochure for Macsyma arrived the other day. On the back page of this +multi-colour leaflet was the statement that `Macsyma's math +expressions look just like those in textbooks'. I hear some of you +already `that's hardly surprising since Macsyma can output in \TeX\ +format'. Well, yes it can, but what the advert was extolling was its +ability to use MS-Write (`which comes with MS-Windows') to create +`screen displays of large expressions', at which it `excels'. By this +time you will have worked out that I wasn't impressed by the example +they give. If I make a list of the infelicities that were displayed +you'll think I was making it up. If Macsyma thinks that textbooks look +like this it is clear that standards of literacy, mathematics and +attention to detail have declined irredeemably. I may have to retire +to Tunbridge Wells. + +\section{As others see us} +In the production notes accompanying the Acrobat in Publishing +booklet, \LaTeX\ (or Latex) is described as a `mark up text processing +package'. + +Rosemary Bailey pointed out to me that in a report entitled `The +Scientific, Technical and Medical Information System in the UK', +prepared on behalf of The Royal Society, the British Library and The +Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, \TeX\ is +defined as `A mark-up language, similar to SGML, compiler and output +software, first developed by the American Mathematical Society (AMS), +for complex mathematical papers. The files contain standard ASCII +characters, and can therefore be transmitted over simple computer +networks. Has the ability to cope with all mathematical symbols and +can provide high-quality output.' + +Rather similarly, Allan Reese remarked in the UKTUG electronic digest +that when his letter to the Daily Telegraph was published, `\TeX' had +been changed to `a text based publishing system'. + + +\section{Colour} +I can't really see why there is all this fuss about colour. None of the +publishers I have spoken to show much enthusiasm for \LaTeX's (sort of) new +ability to allow us to place colour on the page. There are few enough STM +(Scientific, Technical and Medical -- the nomenclature for most +\TeX-friendly publishers like Elsevier, Wiley, etc) books with half +tones let alone full colour. Colour is expensive. In my own +institution the cost difference between a colour page and a monochrome one +is a factor of 12 or so. Fine for the odd page, but hardly enticing. +It is true that colour has its place: that place is usually a full +colour photograph or two in, for example, medical books, or the dust +jacket or cover of a book. Few journals routinely print colour, and +when they do, they often levy an additional charge. + +So why are people so excited? There are possibly a couple of reasons, and they +have nothing to do with paper. The first explanation has been with us for a +long time. \SliTeX\ has always given the capability of creating slides in +colour, although I have never knowingly witnessed slides created in colour by +\SliTeX. But given current technologies, colour slides make some sort +of sense in two presentational forms: the traditional overhead slide; +and through one of these panels which allows the contents of a screen +to be projected. In the first case we still have the hassle of +printing, but in the second we have something potentially quite +useful. Arguably the screen is the cheapest colour system around. It +is quite expensive in capital terms, and its resolution is not great +(always a worry with Computer Modern which is deficient at 300\,dpi, +let alone 72--80\,dpi), but at least the colour rendition is `what you +see is what you get'. Once you go from screen colours to printed +colours you are in trouble, and things seldom come out as +convincingly. This is a well known problem, although there are few +well known solutions. But stick to the screen and you have something +quite convincing. This was brought home to me the other day when I +obtained the notes for an Acrobat seminar in paper and electronic +form. The paper form was in black, grey and white. The electronic form +was in colour. Here was an instant example of added value to the +electronic form -- at no real additional cost. What fascinates me most +is that this is essentially subversive. Recall that \TeX's clarion +call was to produce masterpieces of the publishing art: it seems clear +to me that publishing here implied publishing on paper: what we may +have is a reason to stick to electronic form because the paper form is +less rich -- and indeed, can never be as content-full. + +One of my reasons for querying the usefulness of colour was the +arrival recently on my desk of {\em Cahiers GUTenberg}, the journal of +the French (speaking) \TeX\ group. This long-awaited volume (lateness +seems endemic in +\TeX\ based productions) is a colour issue, and goes into many of the details +surrounding PSTricks, Seminar, and colour in general. While I appreciate that +if you talk about colour, you really have to use it as well, I find the +appearance of the volume similar to the early days of DTP, when the naive had +just discovered fonts. + +\section{Acrobat again} +\subsection{Acrobat in Publishing} +By now you will have realised that I think that Acrobat is a good +thing. By and large my enthusiasm was vindicated at the Acrobat in +Publishing seminar held in London on May 16th at the Society of +Chemical Industry in Belgravia, London. It was there that the penny +dropped that there are advantages to including colour. The meeting +took the typical form of a number of lectures touching on various +aspects of Acrobat technology and a few hands on demonstrations. In +addition we were given a 40-page hand-out of the talks, and a Mac or +MS-DOS floppy with the text in Acrobat format. One of the things which +the meeting lacked, although it was targeted `for people in the +publishing and printing industries' and was claimed to `explain what +Adobe Acrobat technology is', was much explanation of the components +of Acrobat. The notes did explain, but it might have saved much +confusion if an initial talk had just explained some of the buzz-words +and jargon which was about to be unleashed. + +The first speaker (a replacement from the published programme) was +from UK Mail International (part of the group who publish the Mail, +the Mail on Sunday and the Evening Standard). To my surprise they turn +out to be very committed to electronic publishing (I really must stop +underestimating the right's ability to utilise technology: +Conservative they may be; conservative they are not). One proposal was +that we may expect to see compilations of back numbers of newspapers +on CD-ROM in Smith's (in Acrobat format). The less charitable +whispered that they couldn't imagine wanting back editions of the +Mail, but the point here was that for hardly any additional cost, the +newspaper proprietors have another product. Almost equally, one can go +from that and perhaps have the latest edition transmitted to you +electronically. They were talking in terms of a typical issue of the +Evening Standard taking about 10 minutes to download over a 64kbps +ISDN link. They also suggested that there could be added value by +including video clips (for example of a winning goal), which are +clearly not possible in the `standard' version. What was never really +suggested was that I might just want specific stories, so that I might +make up my very own newspaper (this is a suggestion which has been +around for some years), or that the format that I might wish to read +on my screen might be different from the one that the sub-editors had +determined. At least it will be marginally easier reading a tabloid on +screen than a broadsheet (but no more easier to print). + +Rosie Altoft from John Wiley discussed some of their experiences with +Acrobat. Wiley used Acrobat in its beta development days. As you +should know, Wiley has been using \TeX\ for many, many years, and is +arguably one of the most electronically aware of our national STM +publishers. Part of Wiley's experience with Acrobat derives from their +association with the \CJ\ project, which itself is part of the fruit +of the journal EP-odd (Electronic Publishing: origination, +dissemination and design\footnote{Those wondering why the name EP-odd + was chosen might reflect that the Electronic Publishing conference + has a tendency to take place every two years, in even numbered + years: a sort of EP-even.}) which they publish. \CJ\ and EP-odd will +recur in this report. I was not especially clear how much of an +advantage Acrobat was to Wiley's. Since they have been dealing with +electronic submission for years, any advantages seemed rather +incremental rather than revolutionary. The most exciting thing she +suggested was the ability to cut down the amount of time and reworking +involved in changes to cover design -- chiefly through the addition of +the `sticky notes' (or Postit notes) feature. But she did note that +their New York office had been involved in an experimental scheme to +allow college lecturers to create their own course material by +selecting chapters from a wider range of books, and having them +printed up into the course book, again through Acrobat. This embodies +selection and print on demand (or, at least, very short run printing) +-- things which are definitely in the pipeline. + +Philip Smith of Nottingham University Computer Science Department, +{\em Using Fonts in Acrobat} added to my sum total of Acrobat +knowledge in a number of ways. Basically he was describing how +Acrobat handled fonts, but not harping on about the Multiple Master +Technology, which he rather took as read. At present Acrobat can +handle both \PS\ Type~1 and Type~3 fonts, and TrueType fonts. In +passing, in an earlier edition I suggested that Minion and Myriad had +been renamed Adobe Sans and Adobe Serif. This appears not to be the +case. I have at least one document which has Minion, Sans and Serif. +Philip cleared up one point which had been worrying me: how does +Acrobat handle non-Latin fonts? Basically it embeds. Embedded fonts +are those which, for some reason, Acrobat decides to include with the +document, so that rendition is possible. How does it decide? It will +not embed the `standard 14': these are Times, Helvetica and Courier in +their four variations, plus Symbol and Zapf Dingbats: it will embed +fonts which do not use the Latin (ISO Latin~1) character set: it will +always embed Type~3 fonts; all others will be approximated through +Multiple Masters. Almost. You can force the `real' fonts to be +embedded if you use Distiller (one of the Acrobat suite). You will +appreciate that there is a legal issue lurking in here. Can I legally +distribute an Acrobat file which contains an embedded font which has +been licensed to me, but which may not have been licensed to the +recipient? Firstly, all Type~1 fonts in the Adobe Type Library (which +may include those licensed from ITC, Linotype and Monotype) may be +`freely' embedded in Acrobat files (that's a bit woolly to me); +secondly, Adobe considers its encryption to be good enough to prevent +the unscrupulous from extracting the fonts and using them for other +purposes. But beyond that you do run the risk of violating copyright +law. The other piece of key information which Philip gave was how to +obtain the information about which fonts Acrobat is using for a +document. Hold down Shift$+$Ctrl (on Windows), or Shift$+$Option (on a +Mac) while selecting the {\sl Document Info} item from the {\em File} +menu. A slight catch is that this is a running total: you either have +to view the whole document page by page first, or do a search for a +word which doesn't exist (that forces processing of each page). +Another catch is that if you are viewing your second or third +document, their fonts will also be listed. + +After lunch, Ian Chivers of Kings College London discussed the use of +Acrobat with Ventura. He was concerned with its use in an academic +institution, and particularly for the production of large multi-author +documents. He noted that Acrobat (in common with other Windows +products) was resource hungry, requiring something of the order of a +33\,MHz 80486DX with 8\,Mbyte of memory for serious work. A Distiller +run on a 40 page document took 4 hours on a 20\,MHz 80386SX with +5\,Mbyte of memory. I was interested to see that Ventura was taking +Acrobat quite seriously to the extent of providing the hooks to +generate `bookmarks' for tables of contents and indexes, which Acrobat +can subsequently use. + +Leon Harrison (again of Nottingham's Computer Science Department) described +\CJ. This acronym stands for {\em CD-ROM Acrobat Journals Using + Networks}\footnote{The acronym \CJ\ had been established when + Acrobat was actually called Carousel, hence Carousel Assisted + Journals Using Networks, but what's in a name?}. It is in fact a +collaborative venture with John Wiley \& Sons and Chapman \& Hall. A +couple of interesting features emerged in this talk. The major product +is EP-odd on CD-ROM. EP-odd is archived in \LaTeX. The text remained +constant in the archive, but the macros evolved. However, they were +not themselves archived, and when it came to rerun the articles, +discrepancies became apparent. The extra value which Acrobat form can +add includes links between documents (or to the table of contents, +etc) which can be embedded in the \LaTeX\ macros. There are some +difficulties, since forward references require that they know exactly +what point they are to refer to (a common enough problem in \LaTeX, +solved through the {\tt.aux} file, but requiring some more subtle +maneuvering in the \PS\ which will become Acrobat, apparently). +Line art had been redrawn and discarded, requiring some scanning in +from page proofs. One of the other journals in the project is {\em + Collaborative Computing}, which is re-keyed into 3B2, although +authors may submit in \LaTeX\ (given the algorithmic similarity +between 3B2\footnote{A Santa Barbara beer to the first person to give + me the correct explanation for this name; revealer collects, of + course.} and \TeX\ this is a bit sad). + +The last paper was from the urbane Conrad Taylor, who discussed some +of the design issues which were highlighted by Acrobat. He made a +number of points on displaying documents which apply quite widely: you +can seldom display the whole page and read the body type (I can, +because I have an A4 screen and {\em Textures}, but not all the world +is blessed in this way -- however, Conrad was actually talking about +newspaper formats here, and only would-be newsletters use A4 format, +so he's right), and therefore have to zoom and scroll. This becomes +tedious. If the document has colour you need 24-bit colour support. +Rendering and redrawing can be time consuming, especially for +graduated tints and complex vector mapped graphics. If it is indeed a +newspaper, the large size prohibits hard copy at the size for which +the pages were designed. The diagrams have a level of detail +appropriate for litho printing, but not for the screen. He made the +observation that it would be more effective to reformat a newspaper +before distributing it in Acrobat format, to take account of some of +these difficulties. Conrad went on to give an example of designing for +paper and the screen. Admittedly, the example he provided will come as +no great surprise to (\La)\TeX\ people, but it is interesting to see +how far his typesetting tool, FrameMaker, has come. Basically he +employed some generic and was able to take the same marked up +document to produce a screen oriented version and a paper-oriented +version. What made this interesting was that he did the conversion +live, and that Frame supports similar tools to Ventura to allow the +implanting of useful links to support table of contents and other +navigation aids. Of course, when I say `tables of contents', I don't +just mean that they exist, I also mean that they are electronically +linked to the sections to which they refer. It was most agreeable to +see Conrad defending and promoting the use of generic markup. + +All in all, a most useful meeting, attended by close to 100 people. +The venue was good, with excellent facilities both for the social end +of the meeting and the presentations. The group might usefully +consider using this location, if we can fill it! + +\subsection{pdf or dvi?} +It was at this Acrobat meeting that I started to wonder if Leslie +Lamport's notion some years ago that \TeX\ should produce \PS\ +rather than dvi was not correct. I had always rejected this notion, +partly on the grounds that \PS\ was a proprietary system, that +many non-\PS\ printers were out there, and that \PS\ +screen previewers were few and far between. Well, \PS\ is hardly +proprietary any more: there are so many clones, and the details have +all been published; there are still lots of non-\PS\ printers, +but the availability of GhostScript for all the main platforms (Mac, +Unix and pc/Windows) means that this is not a complete barrier. +Similarly, the use of GhostView allows \PS\ to be viewed on the +screen (invaluable for those pesky EPS inclusions). The use of +GhostScript and GhostView does involve an extra step, but could impose +a degree of standardisation which could save much effort. I would +argue that the \LaTeXe\ support for graphics is almost exclusively for +\PS\ graphics, acknowledging the pre-eminence of this system for +serious work. + +But selecting \PS\ as the `ultimate' output format does not go +far enough. It should be Acrobat (or more correctly, portable document +format, pdf). (\La)\TeX\ should produce pdf. Adobe already produces +Acrobat viewers for Mac, DOS and Windows. At present they make a small +charge, but I'm fairly confident that they will soon be part of the +operating system, or given away with so many applications that we can +assume their ubiquity. I was given a Seybold CD-ROM in Acrobat format +with an Acrobat reader for Windows at the seminar. I already have one +for the Mac which I was given at the launch of Acrobat in London last +year. 5D Solutions is producing a freeware Acrobat reader for Unix. +One of the advantages of the Acrobat reader is that it will allow you +to print to \PS\ and non-\PS\ printers -- and if the +document has been created by Distiller, that means that your embedded +EPS will also be printed out. In other words, we have a \PS\ +interpreter in software (just like GhostView and GhostScript). I've +already commented on Acrobat's font substitution. Acrobat supports a +hypertext framework (pdfmark) which allows navigation through the +document. As yet it does not support intra-document links, but that +may come in time. + +If the NTS (New Typesetting System) project has any imagination, it +will see beyond the narrow confines of creating a system to create +even finer masterpieces of the publishing art and will eagerly embrace +the technologies present here to create a system for practical +examples of the {\em electronic} publishing craft. The opportunities +are there. We can only hope their minds are not yet closed. + +\subsection{Size isn't important} +What is the difference in size between {\tt.tex} {\tt .dvi}, {\tt.pdf} +and {\tt.ps} files? I compared only one file, a draft of the one which +contains this column. There are a number of things to watch. +A {\tt.pdf} may contain embedded files, which will obviously make it +larger. I used Blue Sky's Type~1 Computer Modern in my preparation. In +theory it should not have been embedded, and my checks indicate it was +not (I viewed it on another platform which does not have these fonts +-- in fact, which does not have \TeX\ on it). The {\tt.pdf} figure is +from using pdfWriter, not Distiller. I would expect Distiller to +produce slightly more compact code. The {\tt.ps} figure is from dvips +on a Unix box. \PS\ is a notoriously difficult beast to tie +down, since what you are probably measuring has more to do with +optimisation decisions made by the drivers' authors. + +\begin{center}\footnotesize +\begin{tabular}{|lr|} +\hline +\multicolumn{1}{|c}{file}&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{bytes}\\ +\hline +\tt.tex&32682\\ +\tt.dvi&46728\\ +\tt.pdf&103248\\ +\tt.ps &115412\\ +\hline +\end{tabular} +\end{center} + +\section{Editor nods} +Neither our revered and esteemed editor, nor John Bowsher, need lose +sleep that the \TeX\ logo is restricted by Knuthian fiat to Computer +Modern. As long ago as 1986 (\TUB, 7(2), p.101) Knuth had recognised +that the kerning and lowering amount for the logo were font specific, +even within CM. He went on to say `the plain \TeX\ macros are +specifically oriented to Computer Modern fonts. Other typefaces call +for variations in the backspacing, in order to preserve the logo's +general flavor'. He then goes on to note that he has typeset the logo +in a variant of Times Roman for his {\em Computer Journal} paper `and +the standard \verb|\TeX| macro worked fine.' + +This seems to suggest that (a)~Knuth had long ago realised +the problem, and (b)~he does not feel that the +\TeX\ logo should be restricted to CM (sigh). + +\end{Article} +\endinput +\section{Offizin} +Whenever I pontificate about publishing with +\TeX, someone will always bring me to earth by pointing out that the +proceedings of the 1988 \TeX\ conference in Exeter took an +interminable time to hit the bookshops. The figure is about two years +(I was busy\dots). It was therefore a pleasant relief to receive {\sl + Offizin} a few months or so ago. This is a production of {\sc + Dante}, the german-speaking +\TeX\ group. It is a publication designed to disseminate some of the +lectures given at the group's `\TeX\ days'. I worked out just when I +presented the paper which is produced in translation: it was February +1991. That makes the \TeX88 book look much less laggardly! Of course, +what I had to say, about {\em \TeX\ in Europe and America}, is +hopelessly out of date, but when it appears in my list of +publications, no-one will know that! + +Putting this schadenfreude aside, it is an +interesting volume. It should be the first in +a series, a series published by Addison Wesley +(Germany). According to other bits of Addison Wesley, +they don't do conference proceedings, so someone did +some fancy footwork to get this through. Well done. + +One quote I managed to extract was `typography +has its experts, but they have no audience'. + + + +\section{Despair?} +Has \TUB\ sunk? It is now May 23rd and no sign has been seen of the +first edition of 1994. When last year's final copies came out more or +less on time I had supposed that it had finally managed to get its act +together and was to be produced on a regular and reliable basis. +Clearly I was deluded. What is the problem? I refuse to accept the +usual story that it is a complex journal and that to achieve the +standards required the devoted and underpaid or unpaid editorial +volunteers have to devote limitless time and energy to it. \TUB\ is +dying at the altar of quality. If the journal is to have any +credibility it has to come out regularly. Maybe it really is too +complex and \TeX\ is not really up to the production. Commercial +publishers -- to whom we direct much encouragement to use \TeX\ -- +could not allow themselves to be sucked into this cuckoo's nest. TUG +has to try to be realistic and trim the sails of \TUB\ so that it can +leave port. There are enough enemies of TUG, inside and outside the +user group, who wish to see it dismembered, and who do not need to be +able to point to \TUB\ to see graphic demonstration (or +non-demonstration) of the health of the whole organisation. +\section{Euro\TeX} +The publicity for the forthcoming Euro\TeX\ meeting in Poland has +dropped the short passage which described last year's Aston TUG +meeting as one of the Euro\TeX\ series. You may wonder why Aston was +not a Euro\TeX\ meeting. After all, it was a \TeX\ meeting in Europe. +There is no body which chooses a site for Euro\TeX. It has been a +voluntary and piecemeal choice which seems to have worked, to some +extent. When I organised the meeting in Exeter in 1988, I didn't have +to ask anyone, although I had volunteered to organise the meeting when +I was in Strasbourg in 1986. But basically the reason Aston was not +Euro\TeX\ was that the President of one of the European groups decided +it must not be. If I recall correctly\footnote{On reflection, I + suspect this suffered from retelling and translation. Surely no-one + could be so arrogant? The general flavour should be that he was not + in favour of such a move.}, he said he would `instruct his members +not to attend' if it were called Euro\TeX. I find it all rather sad. +Here was a great opportunity for TUG and the European groups to be +seen to be working together. The cynical might suppose that was +exactly what he didn't want to be seen to happen. + + -- cgit v1.2.3