On Friday, May 18, 2012 1:27:08 AM UTC+1, rdawson wrote:
> I realize this is circular, if you dont know how you shouldnt do it.
> But I'm thinking its the first step at seeing a large (and useful)
> book typeset here, not to post a pdf to the net.
> I am a CTAN member...
> Can another member help me out to remove the things that are
> preventing this to process in Texworks?
You are not supposed to typeset it. It is mentioned explicitly in the source on lines 3--6, which state:
% The file is distributed only for people to see its examples of TeX input,
% not for use in the preparation of books like The TeXbook.
% Permission for any other use of this file must be obtained in writing
% from the copyright holder and also from the publisher (Addison-Wesley).
rdawson <randall...@gmail.com> writes:
> I realize this is circular, if you dont know how you shouldnt do it.
not quite, as you've been told
> But I'm thinking its the first step at seeing a large (and useful)
> book typeset here, not to post a pdf to the net.
> I am a CTAN member...
itym "user". we don't have membership, just a couple of admins and a
couple of machines (plus lots of mirrors helping us out with traffic).
> Can another member help me out to remove the things that are
> preventing this to process in Texworks?
i've once seen it being processed (at a tug meeting, using the then
shiny new pdftex). before the process started, the speaker assured the
audience the project had been granted permission to do this.
-- Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
sorry about all this posting. i'll go back to sleep in a bit.
On Thu, 17 May 2012 17:27:08 -0700 (PDT), rdawson <randall...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I realize this is circular, if you dont know how you shouldnt do it.
> But I'm thinking its the first step at seeing a large (and useful)
> book typeset here, not to post a pdf to the net.
> I am a CTAN member...
> Can another member help me out to remove the things that are
> preventing this to process in Texworks?
It's possible to do it. The macros you need are there, in CTAN, and the
editing required to the 1-2 places where 'guard macros' are in place is
really minimal.
Note, however, that you are *not* supposed to do this without explicit
permission from the publisher and even if you do typeset a local version
it's lacking some really _important_ bits: like the nicely drawn figures
of the original.
The important question is: why do you need to typeset your own version?
On May 17, 8:27 pm, rdawson <randall...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I realize this is circular, if you dont know how you shouldnt do it.
> But I'm thinking its the first step at seeing a large (and useful)
> book typeset here, not to post a pdf to the net.
> I am a CTAN member...
> Can another member help me out to remove the things that are
> preventing this to process in Texworks?
If you really need to see how a book is typeset in TeX I would suggest
using instead:
- memman.tex (should be on CTAN --- the manual for memoir --- I
believe it's a good example of LaTeX style)
- _TeX for the Impatient --- http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/teximpatient/ --- eplain, and an interesting examination of how much one used to
have to do oneself --- the index in particular
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 17:27:08 -0700 (PDT), rdawson <randall...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I realize this is circular, if you dont know how you shouldnt do it.
>> But I'm thinking its the first step at seeing a large (and useful)
>> book typeset here, not to post a pdf to the net.
>> I am a CTAN member...
>> Can another member help me out to remove the things that are
>> preventing this to process in Texworks?
> It's possible to do it. The macros you need are there, in CTAN, and the
> editing required to the 1-2 places where 'guard macros' are in place is
> really minimal.
> Note, however, that you are *not* supposed to do this without explicit
> permission from the publisher and even if you do typeset a local version
> it's lacking some really _important_ bits: like the nicely drawn figures
> of the original.
> The important question is: why do you need to typeset your own version?
What might be a useful demonstration would be if TUG -- with appropriate
permissions from Don and A-W -- could video-record the screen while
running the TeXbook through TeX.
That might safisfy the curious, and act as a record of the fact for
posterity.
There are plenty of long [La]TeX documents in the public domain AFAIK,
if all the OP wants is a demo of a big book being typeset.
This got me thinking that it would be nice to have a list
of books that were typesetted using Latex?
I mean officially published books.
I always wonder when I buy or see a book (technical book mainly)
if Latex was used to typeset it, but I do not think Latex is
used to publish books by the major publishers (like mcGraw hills
and such). Most books also do not put this information
inside the cover for some reason.
Sometimes one can tell by the quality of the math and pages
if it is latex or not.
I know for example that I can tell right away if MS Word was
usedto write the book :)
>This got me thinking that it would be nice to have a list
>of books that were typesetted using Latex?
>I mean officially published books.
>I always wonder when I buy or see a book (technical book mainly)
>if Latex was used to typeset it, but I do not think Latex is
>used to publish books by the major publishers (like mcGraw hills
>and such). Most books also do not put this information
>inside the cover for some reason.
Sometime in August (if all continues to go well) one major publisher, namely, Taylor & Francis, is going to publish one (technical) book that was typeset--over major initial objections and resistance--with pdflatex :). Whether this information gets "inside the cover" (or into a colophon) is still, I think, up in the air. We shall see.
On May 18, 7:13 pm, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...@12000.org> wrote:
> I always wonder when I buy or see a book (technical book mainly)
> if Latex was used to typeset it, but I do not think Latex is
> used to publish books by the major publishers (like mcGraw hills
> and such). Most books also do not put this information
> inside the cover for some reason.
cambridge university press uses latex sometimes for books in the
humanities. three that come to mind are albert derolez's book on
latin palaeography (2003), and the cambridge companions to william of
ockham (1999) and john duns scotus (2003). the information is given
where all the copyright stuff is. (note: most cambridge companions
that i've looked at do /not/ mention using latex, but some do. no
idea who makes the decision.)
> On May 18, 7:13 pm, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...@12000.org> wrote:
> > I always wonder when I buy or see a book (technical book mainly)
> > if Latex was used to typeset it, but I do not think Latex is
> > used to publish books by the major publishers (like mcGraw hills
> > and such). Most books also do not put this information
> > inside the cover for some reason.
One easy way to spot it is the font: many, many books made with TeX
stick to Computer Modern, and you can't miss it.
> cambridge university press uses latex sometimes for books in the
> humanities. three that come to mind are albert derolez's book on
> latin palaeography (2003), and the cambridge companions to william of
> ockham (1999) and john duns scotus (2003). the information is given
> where all the copyright stuff is.
Interestingly, I own a book in paperback (Regularity in semantic change)
from CUP, in which it is not indicated that it was made with LaTeX on
the copyright page; but I've seen the hardback in a library and there
it says so.
On Saturday, May 19, 2012 6:26:26 AM UTC+1, zappathustra wrote:
> jon <jonwrobin...@gmail.com> a écrit:
> > On May 18, 7:13 pm, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...@12000.org> wrote:
> > > I always wonder when I buy or see a book (technical book mainly)
> > > if Latex was used to typeset it, but I do not think Latex is
> > > used to publish books by the major publishers (like mcGraw hills
> > > and such). Most books also do not put this information
> > > inside the cover for some reason.
> One easy way to spot it is the font: many, many books made with TeX
> stick to Computer Modern, and you can't miss it.
Of course most books about TeX, LaTeX and friends are usually typeset with TeX, LaTeX and friends. See http://www.tug.org/books/ for a list of books that have been reviewed for TUGboat.
> This got me thinking that it would be nice to have a list
> of books that were typesetted using Latex?
> I mean officially published books.
> I always wonder when I buy or see a book (technical book mainly)
> if Latex was used to typeset it, but I do not think Latex is
> used to publish books by the major publishers (like mcGraw hills
> and such).
> Most books also do not put this information
> inside the cover for some reason.
Fashion. Most publishers have stopped putting details of the typeface
inside the cover as well.
There was an idea that TUG should start collecting the details of books
typeset with [La]TeX that were *not* books *about* [La]TeX. Maybe this
should be revived...something to discuss at the conference in Boston?
> On Saturday, May 19, 2012 6:26:26 AM UTC+1, zappathustra wrote:
>> jon <jonwrobin...@gmail.com> a écrit:
>>> On May 18, 7:13 pm, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...@12000.org> wrote:
>>>> I always wonder when I buy or see a book (technical book mainly)
>>>> if Latex was used to typeset it, but I do not think Latex is
>>>> used to publish books by the major publishers (like mcGraw hills
>>>> and such). Most books also do not put this information
>>>> inside the cover for some reason.
>> One easy way to spot it is the font: many, many books made with TeX
>> stick to Computer Modern, and you can't miss it.
> This got me thinking that it would be nice to have a list
> of books that were typesetted using Latex?
> I mean officially published books.
> I always wonder when I buy or see a book (technical book mainly)
> if Latex was used to typeset it, but I do not think Latex is
> used to publish books by the major publishers (like mcGraw hills
> and such). Most books also do not put this information
> inside the cover for some reason.
- Many physics books published by Springer
- Nicolai Josuttis: the C++ standard library (as an example for a book
that is not math-heavy and does not deal with the natural sciences)
> Sometimes one can tell by the quality of the math and pages
> if it is latex or not.
Math is not the best distinguisher any more since math typesetting is
nowadays of equal or better quality in Word. Other distinguishing
options are:
- Microtypography like margin kerning (however, InDesign supports this,
too)
- Line breaking and hyphenation (Word still uses a naive greedy
algorithm here, InDesign also uses some global optimization heuristic)
I'm not sure about InDesign's current status concerning math. If it has
already implemented Word's algorithm, its output quality should be at
least as good as LuaTeX's in all respect.
> Math is not the best distinguisher any more since math typesetting is
> nowadays of equal or better quality in Word.
You think equation editor in word produces as good math as Latex? I
have not tried equation editor for years. I should make
a comparison on this soon and add it to my current list.
> Other distinguishing
> options are:
> - Microtypography like margin kerning (however, InDesign supports this,
> too)
> - Line breaking and hyphenation (Word still uses a naive greedy
> algorithm here, InDesign also uses some global optimization heuristic)
> I'm not sure about InDesign's current status concerning math. If it has
> already implemented Word's algorithm, its output quality should be at
> least as good as LuaTeX's in all respect.
I looked at inDesign once for doing math. Need a 3rd party tool
to add equations, such as mathmagic
and such. They work like the built-in equation editor
in word 2010.
Do you of an example on the web that has lots of math and
was generated from inDesign document? I'd like to
see how inDesign to HTML conversion with math looks like.
I tried framemaker long time ago, and liked the overall
document design, but it had little math support, and
I think indesign is supposed to replace framemaker.
Anyway, in the end, I myself like Latex, since it is
also plain text. I am trying to get away from
anything binary and blackboxed in, as now I can see
everything.
On Saturday, May 19, 2012 6:09:32 PM UTC+2, Philipp Stephani wrote:
> "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...@12000.org> writes:
> > This got me thinking that it would be nice to have a list
> > of books that were typesetted using Latex?
> > I mean officially published books.
> > I always wonder when I buy or see a book (technical book mainly)
> > if Latex was used to typeset it, but I do not think Latex is
> > used to publish books by the major publishers (like mcGraw hills
> > and such). Most books also do not put this information
> > inside the cover for some reason.
> - Many physics books published by Springer
> - Nicolai Josuttis: the C++ standard library (as an example for a book
> that is not math-heavy and does not deal with the natural sciences)
> > Sometimes one can tell by the quality of the math and pages
> > if it is latex or not.
> Math is not the best distinguisher any more since math typesetting is
> nowadays of equal or better quality in Word.
And who typeset books in Word? :) It is either an Adobe thing or Quark, neither do math at all (you need cumbersome "plugins" with not so good quality).
Unfortunately, LOTS of smaller publishers do this, relying on the
author, a stylesheet, and some office junior as "editor".
It's cheap, fast, and MOST readers will not notice it, because they are
now acclimated for over a generation to this level of quality.
And most publishers have never heard of LaTeX anyway. Or if they have,
they run away fast, because they have seen what an inexperienced author
can do :-) and they think that that is the ONLY thing LaTeX can do.
> On 19/05/12 19:43, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> [...]
>> And who typeset books in Word? :)
> Unfortunately, LOTS of smaller publishers do this, relying on the
> author, a stylesheet, and some office junior as "editor".
> It's cheap, fast, and MOST readers will not notice it, because they are
> now acclimated for over a generation to this level of quality.
> And most publishers have never heard of LaTeX anyway. Or if they have,
> they run away fast, because they have seen what an inexperienced author
> can do :-) and they think that that is the ONLY thing LaTeX can do.
> ///Peter
That is why it is even more important if there is a central
web site of links to all published books typesetted using
Latex (with small chapter examples from these books) like
someone posted here earlier from one publisher.
Then all you have to do to "convince" someone to use Latex to
publish a book with is to point them to this site to see
for themselves.
A picture is worth a thousands words :)
Actually, using Latex to publish a book makes even more
sense when there is little or no math. For me the hardest
thing about using Latex is to typeset the math equations.
If there is no math or little math, then using Latex seems
to make more sense in this case, since it become even easier
to use.
> > Sometimes one can tell by the quality of the math and pages
> > if it is latex or not.
> Math is not the best distinguisher any more since math typesetting is
> nowadays of equal or better quality in Word. Other distinguishing
> options are:
> - Microtypography like margin kerning (however, InDesign supports this,
> too)
> - Line breaking and hyphenation (Word still uses a naive greedy
> algorithm here, InDesign also uses some global optimization heuristic)
Here's another:
- words run together, where the author used a macro and forgot that
spaces after it are ignored. ;-)
On May 19, 3:22 pm, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...@12000.org> wrote:
> Actually, using Latex to publish a book makes even more
> sense when there is little or no math. For me the hardest
> thing about using Latex is to typeset the math equations.
> If there is no math or little math, then using Latex seems
> to make more sense in this case, since it become even easier
> to use.
in general i think this is true (e.g., the cambridge companions i
mentioned the other day), /especially/ now that we have biblatex-biber
to use for complex bibliographical/citation rules. where it is still
difficult (but still better than most options for most things) is
complex documents like critical editions with facing-page translations
--- though really only for non-latin alphabet languages. for
instance, an arabic-language critical edition with a facing page
english translation is very difficult, even, it seems, with all the
post-pdftex options out there. (luckily, i've never had to worry
about anything more complicated than a tiny bit of greek here and
there....)
in the humanities, my problem is not that latex doesn't do a better
job or any of that, it's that no one cares to use anything other than
word. so i write in latex, and then get stuck translating it to
word.¹ and here the hardest part is not getting it out of latex
(thanks to tex4ht!), but going from libreoffice/openoffice (.odt) to
word (.doc). the formatting of things like footnotes and cross-
references are invariably screwed up and unfixable unless you have
access to word after saving it to .doc (which i don't unless i use a
computer in the library).
cheers,
jon.
¹. luckily, the publisher brill is letting me produce 'camera-ready'
copy for my book as long as i follow their formatting directives.
dealing with converting a whole book to word is a nightmare i don't
want to contemplate!
jon <jonwrobin...@gmail.com> writes:
> On May 18, 7:13 pm, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...@12000.org> wrote:
>> I always wonder when I buy or see a book (technical book mainly)
>> if Latex was used to typeset it, but I do not think Latex is
>> used to publish books by the major publishers (like mcGraw hills
>> and such). Most books also do not put this information
>> inside the cover for some reason.
> cambridge university press uses latex sometimes for books in the
> humanities. three that come to mind are albert derolez's book on
> latin palaeography (2003), and the cambridge companions to william of
> ockham (1999) and john duns scotus (2003). the information is given
> where all the copyright stuff is. (note: most cambridge companions
> that i've looked at do /not/ mention using latex, but some do. no
> idea who makes the decision.)
the darwin letters project books (also published by cup) are now done
with latex; i helped a bit transferring the work from a workflow on
ms-dos to one using latex on something unix-y.
(they're really lovely books, and great fun to read.)
-- Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
sorry about all this posting. i'll go back to sleep in a bit.
Peter Flynn <peter.n...@m.silmaril.ie> writes:
> On 19/05/12 19:43, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> [...]
>> And who typeset books in Word? :)
> Unfortunately, LOTS of smaller publishers do this, relying on the
> author, a stylesheet, and some office junior as "editor".
and the results are often better than corresponding books that i used
when doing my degree. one book that sticks in the mind was typewritten
(with a golfball typewriter, judging by the quality), and the maths was
all done with some special ball that had integral signs around the size
of an upper-case letter.) it was on galois theory; i never really got
to grips with that.
> It's cheap, fast, and MOST readers will not notice it, because they are
> now acclimated for over a generation to this level of quality.
> And most publishers have never heard of LaTeX anyway. Or if they have,
> they run away fast, because they have seen what an inexperienced author
> can do :-) and they think that that is the ONLY thing LaTeX can do.
sigh. there's also the problem that, if they want to retain the source
for a future edition, they'll (with probability closely approaching 1)
want the source in xml according to some established dtd. latex authors
tend not to do that...
(present company excepted.)
-- Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
sorry about all this posting. i'll go back to sleep in a bit.
> On May 19, 3:22 pm, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...@12000.org> wrote:
>> Actually, using Latex to publish a book makes even more
>> sense when there is little or no math. For me the hardest
>> thing about using Latex is to typeset the math equations.
>> If there is no math or little math, then using Latex seems
>> to make more sense in this case, since it become even easier
>> to use.
> in general i think this is true (e.g., the cambridge companions i
> mentioned the other day), /especially/ now that we have biblatex-biber
> to use for complex bibliographical/citation rules.
I am still stuck with BiBTeX: last time I tried biblatex it wasn't
really ready for industrial use.
> where it is still
> difficult (but still better than most options for most things) is
> complex documents like critical editions with facing-page translations
> --- though really only for non-latin alphabet languages. for
> instance, an arabic-language critical edition with a facing page
> english translation is very difficult, even, it seems, with all the
> post-pdftex options out there. (luckily, i've never had to worry
> about anything more complicated than a tiny bit of greek here and
> there....)
I'm just in the middle of a facing-page edition (Middle Irish and
English), and ledmac seems to be doing fine.
> in the humanities, my problem is not that latex doesn't do a better
> job or any of that, it's that no one cares to use anything other than
> word. so i write in latex, and then get stuck translating it to
> word.¹ and here the hardest part is not getting it out of latex
> (thanks to tex4ht!), but going from libreoffice/openoffice (.odt) to
> word (.doc). the formatting of things like footnotes and cross-
> references are invariably screwed up and unfixable unless you have
> access to word after saving it to .doc (which i don't unless i use a
> computer in the library).
I've banged this drum many times before, but it might be worth repeating.
Author in XML, not LaTeX. Transform the XML to LaTeX with XSLT. That way
it's testable, reproducible, visible, and manageable under machine
control. The big move in the Humanities is to using TEI XML for markup,
so this is really just going with the flow. Yes, it takes some learning,
and yes, it takes some time to set up a good workflow, but if you are
using this for anything critical or persistent, it's time and money well
spent.
If you're not the author, demand Word .docx or ODT documents ONLY, with
a stylesheet using Named Styles. If the styles have been applied
correctly and consistently, transformation with XSLT to TEI or direct to
LaTeX gives you the same benefits as above, and you can also continue to
use Word as the exchange format with authors and editors.
> ¹. luckily, the publisher brill is letting me produce 'camera-ready'
> copy for my book as long as i follow their formatting directives.
> dealing with converting a whole book to word is a nightmare i don't
> want to contemplate!
Agreed. Only ever convert OUT of Word (via .docx), never into it :-)
> I've banged this drum many times before, but it might be worth repeating.
> Author in XML, not LaTeX. Transform the XML to LaTeX with XSLT. That way
> it's testable, reproducible, visible, and manageable under machine
> control.
>> I've banged this drum many times before, but it might be worth repeating.
>> Author in XML, not LaTeX. Transform the XML to LaTeX with XSLT. That way
>> it's testable, reproducible, visible, and manageable under machine
>> control.
> Ok, but how to do math in XML?
> How to write this in XML
> \[
> \lim_{x \to \infty} \exp(-x) = 0
> \]
> ?
I did a bit of research on this now. And I think one is supposed
to use a MathML DTD thing and somehow include it in XML.
But the math typesetting looks so complicated compared to
latex (and I thought Latex math was complicated!)
For example, in Latex, I write
$ a/b $
in MathML, according to the above page, it is
<mrow><mi>a</mi><mo>/</mo><mi>b</mi></mrow>
And this is an easy example I saw.
If this is really what I would have to type to get
math into my plain text document, and Unless there is a
much simpler way, and I am overlooking something, then I
think I'll pass on this XML, thank you very much :)
