How to typeset texbook.tex

[rdawson]

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?

Randy

[Marc van Dongen]

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).

Regards,


Marc van Dongen

[Robin Fairbairns]

rdawson <randa...@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.

[Giorgos Keramidas]

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?

[William F. Adams]

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

- Making TeX Work --- http://makingtexwork.sourceforge.net/mtw/ ---
excellent book very much in need of up-dating

A fair number of the free math books are (of course) authored in LaTeX
and should be good examples:

- http://linear.ups.edu/opentexts.html

- http://people.umass.edu/klement/russell-imp.html

Don't typeset _The TeXbook_ though, it's not allowed and is a
violation of copyright.

William

[Peter Flynn]

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.

///Peter

[Nasser M. Abbasi]

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 :)

--Nasser

[Lee Rudolph]

"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.

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.

Lee Rudolph

[jon]

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.)

cheers,
jon.

[zappathustra]

jon <jonwro...@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.

> 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.

Best,
Paul

[Marc van Dongen]

On Saturday, May 19, 2012 6:26:26 AM UTC+1, zappathustra wrote:
> jon <jonwro...@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 is the time to eat your hat:

http://www.tsengbooks.com/.

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.

Regards,


Marc van Dongen

[Peter Flynn]

On 19/05/12 00:13, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> 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).

We typeset books for publishers, but mostly non-math books, for example
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Critical-Turns-Theory-Directions-International/dp/1845115597/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337425032&sr=1-7
and
http://www.amazon.com/Eachtra-Phinocchio-Le-adventure-Pinocchio/dp/0954455401/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337425545&sr=8-1
and
http://www.amazon.com/Bede-Liverpool-University-Translated-Historians/dp/0853230498/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337425603&sr=8-1
but occasionally with math like
http://www.lannoo.be/content/Lannoo/wbnl/listview/1/index.jsp?titelcode=16692&fondsid=0

> 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?

///Peter

[Peter Flynn]

On 19/05/12 08:22, Marc van Dongen wrote:
> On Saturday, May 19, 2012 6:26:26 AM UTC+1, zappathustra wrote:
>> jon <jonwro...@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 is the time to eat your hat:
>
> http://www.tsengbooks.com/.

I'd missed that. I'll add ours.

///Peter

[Philipp Stephani]

"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. 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.

--
Philipp Stephani

[Nasser M. Abbasi]

On 5/19/2012 11:09 AM, Philipp Stephani wrote:

>
> 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

http://www.mathmagic.com/macscreenshots.html

or mathtype

http://www.dessci.com/en/products/mathtype/default.htm

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.

thanks for the info.

--Nasser

[Khaled Hosny]

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).

[Peter Flynn]

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

[Nasser M. Abbasi]

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.

--Nasser

[Dan]

On May 19, 11:09 am, Philipp Stephani <p.stepha...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...@12000.org> writes:
>
> > 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. ;-)


Dan

[jon]

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!

[Robin Fairbairns]

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]

Peter Flynn <peter...@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.)

[Peter Flynn]

On 19/05/12 21:39, jon wrote:
> 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.น 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.

> น. 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 :-)

///Peter

[Nasser M. Abbasi]

On 5/19/2012 7:00 PM, Peter Flynn wrote:

>
> 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


\[
\lim_{x \to \infty} \exp(-x) = 0
\]

?

thanks,

--Nasser

[Nasser M. Abbasi]

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.

lots of examples here

http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML3/chapter4.html#contm.divide

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 :)

--Nasser

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <a1o0le...@mid.individual.net>, Peter Flynn

<pe...@silmaril.ie> writes:

> 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.

Many books are written in LaTeX. Many of these are theses, some of them
available at arXiv, so one could download the LaTeX files and process
it. If all is needed is a demonstration of a book being typeset, then
this should suffice.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <jp6l3p$t0s$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, "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 have seen notes to this effect ("typeset from a LaTeX manuscript
provided by the author") in officially published books. It might have
been more common a few years ago when "camera-ready" manuscripts (i.e.
in practice PostScript produced from LaTeX) were more common. Today,
there are some publishers which accept manuscripts in LaTeX but actually
convert them to something else during the publishing process.

[jon]

On May 19, 8:00 pm, Peter Flynn <peter.n...@m.silmaril.ie> wrote:
> I am still stuck with BiBTeX: last time I tried biblatex it wasn't
> really ready for industrial use.

this might not be true now, especially with biber. in fact, some
really tricky/esoteric examples of what you can do can be found on the
tex-stackexchange site.

>
> > 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.

indeed. i've used ledmac quite a bit and am very happy with it. some
years ago, though, a friend used it to typeset an edition of an arabic
translation of ptolemy's /planisphere/. the original plan was (this
was pre-xetex, i think) to do a facing page translation with ledmac,
ledpar, and ledarab, but the authors oculdn't get it to work, and they
settled on doing text, then translation. judging by the list of
issues given here <http://tex.stackexchange.com/q/56044/8528>, many of
the same problems still exist.

but i work with latin, and it's (largely) a breeze to get things done
right for me. i assume this is true for any language that uses the
latin alphabet.

> > 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.

yes, you've mentioned this enough that i'm sure it's true, but i've
yet to (try to) tackle it. one day, i hope i'll at least get my feet
wet. in fact, i'd be very interested to see how you do 'ledmac stuff'
in xml. how readable is the file when you've got nested calls to the
various apparatus? even in plain latex mark-up, it quickly becomes
rather horrid to read --- even if you streamline the \edtext{<body
text>}{\Afootnote{<apparatus stuff>} macros into something more
readable.

> 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.

i need to look into this. so far though, it's me giving my work to
others, not them to me. but your point is well-taken.

cheers,
jon.

[jon]

On May 20, 1:22 pm, jon <jonwrobin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes, you've mentioned this enough that i'm sure it's true, but i've
> yet to (try to) tackle it.  one day, i hope i'll at least get my feet
> wet.  in fact, i'd be very interested to see how you do 'ledmac stuff'
> in xml.  how readable is the file when you've got nested calls to the
> various apparatus?  even in plain latex mark-up, it quickly becomes
> rather horrid to read --- even if you streamline the \edtext{<body
> text>}{\Afootnote{<apparatus stuff>} macros into something more
> readable.

and of course, it's so easy to forget the correct number of closing
braces:
\edtext{<body text>}{\Afootnote{<apparatus stuff>}} !

[coo...@nospamverizon.net]

Absolutely. I work with a number of 'big publishers', and for 'quick and
dirty, hardly anyone will buy it' types of books, they'll take the .tex
file, send it to one of their contractor types (generally in India),
have them 'pretty it up a bit' (typically, not a lot more than some
micro-spacing, and 'better fonts'), and publish it from there. For
'fancy' books, more and more they are sucking it into InDesign, or (less
often) Quark (or 'real' DTP platforms). Having watched my better half
tart things up using InDesign in her work, there is no doubt that if the
aesthetics are important (and I mean beyond the gut-level aesthetics of
how TeX handles equations), TeX becomes a bit of a slog (it isn't a DTP
system, and wasn't meant to be. Which never stopped me from banging my
head against that wall to make it behave as if it were).

[Nasser M. Abbasi]

On 5/20/2012 1:34 PM, coo...@NOSPAMverizon.net wrote:

> Having watched my better half
> tart things up using InDesign in her work, there is no doubt that if the
> aesthetics are important (and I mean beyond the gut-level aesthetics of
> how TeX handles equations), TeX becomes a bit of a slog (it isn't a DTP
> system, and wasn't meant to be.

How does InDesign conversion to HTML looks? Is it good? or
similar to word->html?

I am looking for examples of web pages generated by InDesign
with math equations on it to compare it to Latex2html.

If you know of examples, would like to know.

thanks,
--nasser

[Peter Flynn]

On 20/05/12 01:32, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> On 5/19/2012 7:15 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>> On 5/19/2012 7:00 PM, Peter Flynn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> lots of examples here
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML3/chapter4.html#contm.divide
>
> 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

You're not supposed to type it by hand unless you like pain :-)
There are XML editors which include typographical math editors
(close-to-WYSIWYG), like EPIC. OpenOffice/LibreOffice also includes a
MathML editor.

///Peter

[Peter Flynn]

On 20/05/12 18:22, jon wrote:
> On May 19, 8:00�pm, Peter Flynn <peter.n...@m.silmaril.ie> wrote:

[xml]

> yes, you've mentioned this enough that i'm sure it's true, but i've
> yet to (try to) tackle it. one day, i hope i'll at least get my feet
> wet. in fact, i'd be very interested to see how you do 'ledmac stuff'
> in xml.

You don't. You maintain the two documents (source and translation)
separately, but ensure the paragraphs or whatever divisions you use in
element content are aligned (ie same markup in both). You then write
some XSLT to output the ledmac code, reading from both files.

The one I'm working on at the moment is The Irish Lives of Guy of
Warwick and Bevis of Hampton, at
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/G306000/ (source) and
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T306000/ (translation). The paragraphs
are not yet aligned, though, so it needs another edit cycle (aligning to
a source which doesn't actually contain "paragraphs" per se calls for
linguistic and historical judgment).

> how readable is the file when you've got nested calls to the
> various apparatus?

I haven't tackled one with a complex apparatus yet. Assuming the
apparatus occurs only in the source[s] (ie the LH pages), then it's
"just" the same problem as for any apparatus (how to represent it). The
RH side can then follow the same pattern, because the XSLT is driven by
the sequence of events in the source.

> even in plain latex mark-up, it quickly becomes
> rather horrid to read --- even if you streamline the \edtext{<body
> text>}{\Afootnote{<apparatus stuff>} macros into something more
> readable.

No markup for complex apparatus is readable except by an expert in the
markup (and probably the domain as well).

///Peter

[Peter Flynn]

On 19/05/12 22:48, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> Peter Flynn <peter...@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.)

I wrote my Masters dissertation on one of them. But the math involved
was relatively simple and non-rigorous.

> it was on galois theory; i never really got to grips with that.

Sont fous, ces galois :-)

>> 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...

Typically, publishers used to farm out the typesetting (from whatever
format original the author submitted) and require the typesetter to
return (a) film (or PS/PDF) and (b) SGML. The SGML was produced AFTER
the document was typeset, by reverse-engineering it into markup (yes,
really).

When XML came along, whatever software the publishers might have
supplied for helping the typesetter do this was dropped on the floor
(Elsevier's Pandora, for example) and typesetters had to go and find XML
software (and learn XML in the process).

Finally, the penny seems to have dropped: more and more publishers are
now keeping the master document in XML and generating output from it.

\begin{plug}
There will be a lot more about this and related stuff in the Publishing
track which I am chairing at the XML Summer School in Oxford in
September (http://www.xmlsummerschool.org). If you are involved with a
publisher, suggest strongly to them that they should send someone to
find out what's going on :-)
\end{plug}

///Peter

[Nasser M. Abbasi]

On 5/20/2012 3:03 PM, Peter Flynn wrote:

>
> \begin{plug}
> There will be a lot more about this and related stuff in the Publishing
> track which I am chairing at the XML Summer School in Oxford in
> September (http://www.xmlsummerschool.org). If you are involved with a
> publisher, suggest strongly to them that they should send someone to
> find out what's going on :-)
> \end{plug}
>
> ///Peter

You did not use XML to typeset your XML plug, you used Latex !

That should have been

<PLUG>
.....
</PLUG>

You see, Latex is so much easier to write, even for an XML plug message :)

--Nasser

[Guenter Milde]

On 2012-05-19, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> On 5/19/2012 2:14 PM, Peter Flynn wrote:
>> On 19/05/12 19:43, Khaled Hosny wrote:

> 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.

The LyX wiki has a page with publications (books and articles/reports) done
with LyX/LaTex http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/ProducedPublications

Günter

[Alain Ketterlin]

"Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...@12000.org> writes:

>> I've banged this drum many times before, but it might be worth
>> repeating.
>> Author in XML, not LaTeX.

I fully agree with you.

> Ok, but how to do math in XML?
>
> How to write this in XML
>
>
> \[
> \lim_{x \to \infty} \exp(-x) = 0
> \]
>
> ?

I really think mathjax changes the game here. If your target formats are
LaTeX and HTML+mathjax, then... just write the math as above (with
proper markup around). The transformation is responsible for generating
the right thing (a no-op in both cases).

-- Alain.

[Nasser M. Abbasi]

And how will I obtain a pdf document of my report if I
use mathjax in the HTML page?

I have to start with Latex. I need the pdf document.

I think future latex->HTML will be based on using mathjax

latex-> t2jax -> html (this is the latex to mathjax conversion)
latex-> pdftex-> pdf (what we have now)

But until someone expert writes a t2jax, then I'll
continue to use latex2html. There is simply nothing better
at this moment to generate math from latex to the web.

I tried them all.

I think making a t2jax would be much simpler to do
than latex2html (which is probably the most complicated
program ever written, it was also written in perl ;)
and it is currently not maintained by anyone I know of.

\begin{rant}
scary situation if you ask me. This just tells me that
the latex community do not care much about latex->html
conversion and only cares about old fashioned hardcopy
printed pages output from latex, but the world is moving away
form hardcopy documents to the web-based documents.

PDF is not a substitute to HTML pages on the web. it
awkward to download and open and navigate into compared
to HTML pages, hard to copy paste, hyperlink to, etc...
\end{rant}

Back to t2jax:

With t2jax, all one has to do, is filter out the latex
code, and copy that, as is, to the generated HTML page,
and the rest (the no math stuff) can be just normal
HTML, <title>, <P>, <TD>, <TH>, IMG, etc...

with mathjax, No need to convert math to images and deal
with all these issues, which is what makes the conversion
hard. Let mathjax deal with the math in latex.

--Nasser

[Philipp Stephani]

"Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...@12000.org> writes:

> On 5/21/2012 5:00 AM, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
>> "Nasser M. Abbasi"<n...@12000.org> writes:
>>
>>>> I've banged this drum many times before, but it might be worth
>>>> repeating.
>>>> Author in XML, not LaTeX.
>>
>> I fully agree with you.
>>
>>> Ok, but how to do math in XML?
>>>
>>> How to write this in XML
>>>
>>>
>>> \[
>>> \lim_{x \to \infty} \exp(-x) = 0
>>> \]
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> I really think mathjax changes the game here. If your target formats are
>> LaTeX and HTML+mathjax, then... just write the math as above (with
>> proper markup around). The transformation is responsible for generating
>> the right thing (a no-op in both cases).
>>
>> -- Alain.
>
> And how will I obtain a pdf document of my report if I
> use mathjax in the HTML page?

Most browsers should be able to generate a PDF document directly from an
HTML document. The quality may vary, however (none of the browsers I
know implements e.g. a globally-optimizing hyphenation algorithm or
margin kerning).

Another option is to start from a format like reStructuredText and
generate a PDF document (via LaTeX) and an HTML document (using MathJax)
from there.

--
Philipp Stephani

[Alain Ketterlin]

"Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...@12000.org> writes:

>>> How to write this in XML
>>>
>>>
>>> \[
>>> \lim_{x \to \infty} \exp(-x) = 0
>>> \]
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> I really think mathjax changes the game here. If your target formats are
>> LaTeX and HTML+mathjax, then... just write the math as above (with
>> proper markup around). The transformation is responsible for generating
>> the right thing (a no-op in both cases).

> And how will I obtain a pdf document of my report if I
> use mathjax in the HTML page?

No idea. I don't understand why would you want to produce PDF from the
HTML.

> I have to start with Latex.

Let's stop here. What I was talking about (after Peter) was to start
with XML to generate both LaTeX and HTML+mathjax.

> I need the pdf document.

You would use regular pdflatex on the generated LaTeX.

> I think future latex->HTML will be based on using mathjax

I think there will never be a "complete" LaTeX->HTML converter, simply
because both languages describe different abstractions.

> [...]

-- Alain.

[John Harper]

jon wrote:

> 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.)
>

> cheers,
> jon.

Not just humanities. Here are Cambridge University Press examples from the
inhumanities and the sciences.

They appear to have used TeX or LaTeX for Wilmott, Howison and Dewynne's
"The Mathematics of Financial Derivatives" (1995). They didn't say so, but
its mathematics looks like what LaTeX would produce.

They also did Andrews, Askey and Roy's "Special Functions" (I have the 2000
printing), which says "Typeset in 10/13 Times Roman in LaTeX[TB]" on the
back of the title page. I don't know what that [TB] means.

-- John Harper


--
John Harper

[jon]

On May 20, 3:54 pm, Peter Flynn <pe...@silmaril.ie> wrote:
> > On May 19, 8:00 pm, Peter Flynn <peter.n...@m.silmaril.ie> wrote:
> [xml]
> > yes, you've mentioned this enough that i'm sure it's true, but i've
> > yet to (try to) tackle it.  one day, i hope i'll at least get my feet
> > wet.  in fact, i'd be very interested to see how you do 'ledmac stuff'
> > in xml.
>
> You don't. You maintain the two documents (source and translation)
> separately, but ensure the paragraphs or whatever divisions you use in
> element content are aligned (ie same markup in both). You then write
> some XSLT to output the ledmac code, reading from both files.
>
> The one I'm working on at the moment is The Irish Lives of Guy of

> Warwick and Bevis of Hampton, athttp://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/G306000/(source) andhttp://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T306000/(translation). The paragraphs

> are not yet aligned, though, so it needs another edit cycle (aligning to
> a source which doesn't actually contain "paragraphs" per se calls for
> linguistic and historical judgment).

thanks for the link. i will take a closer look one day soon.

> > even in plain latex mark-up, it quickly becomes
> > rather horrid to read --- even if you streamline the \edtext{<body
> > text>}{\Afootnote{<apparatus stuff>} macros into something more
> > readable.
>
> No markup for complex apparatus is readable except by an expert in the
> markup (and probably the domain as well).

yes, i suppose that is true.

cheers,
jon.

[Peter Flynn]

On 20/05/12 21:23, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> On 5/20/2012 3:03 PM, Peter Flynn wrote:
>
>>
>> \begin{plug}
>> There will be a lot more about this and related stuff in the Publishing
>> track which I am chairing at the XML Summer School in Oxford in
>> September (http://www.xmlsummerschool.org). If you are involved with a
>> publisher, suggest strongly to them that they should send someone to
>> find out what's going on :-)
>> \end{plug}
>>
>> ///Peter
>
> You did not use XML to typeset your XML plug, you used Latex !

My plugs on comp.text.xml do that. Here, they use LaTeX syntax :-)

> That should have been
>
> <PLUG>
> .....
> </PLUG>
>
> You see, Latex is so much easier to write, even for an XML plug message :)

Au contraire, your XML is only 13 keystrokes compared with 22 for the
LaTeX syntax. In both cases, 2 clicks if your Insert menu had a PLUG
element type...

///Peter

[William F. Adams]

On May 18, 7:13 pm, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...@12000.org> wrote:

> 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).

As others have noted, you would be incorrect.

A simple search would have led one to:

_TeX and LaTeX: Drawing and Literate Programming/Book and Disk (Mcgraw-
Hill Programming Tools for Scientists & Engineers)_ by Eitan M. Gurari

> Most books also do not put this information
> inside the cover for some reason.

Whether or no there's a colophon is normally decided by the author ---
an editor or the publisher _might_ put one in to make even signatures,
but usually there's some other bit of advertising that they would wish
to include.

William

[Lee Rudolph]

Giorgos Keramidas <kera...@ceid.upatras.gr> writes:

>The important question is: why do you need to typeset your own version?

An answer to this question occurred to me today, when trying
to track down a (non-La)TeX command I couldn't quite remember.
(I did find it, and Knuth's explanation was admirably helpful.)

That is: you (I) might want (not, certainly, *need*) to typeset
a copy in PDF so as greatly to facilitate those searches that
even Knuth's excellent index doesn't always make easy.

And (not entirely incidentally) someone whose copy of the
TeXBook is 23 years old might also want another copy that
is either purely digital and/or printed (as mine was not)
on acid-free paper and/or (as mine certainly no longer is)
without any pages that are beginning to lose their grips
on the spiral binding.

None of these reasons are (yet) enough to motivate me
to break trust and typeset a copy for myself; but they
aren't entirely frivolous, I think.

Lee Rudolph

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <jpqro7$j3l$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Lee Rudolph

<lrud...@panix.com> writes:

> And (not entirely incidentally) someone whose copy of the
> TeXBook is 23 years old might also want another copy that
> is either purely digital and/or printed (as mine was not)
> on acid-free paper and/or (as mine certainly no longer is)
> without any pages that are beginning to lose their grips
> on the spiral binding.
>
> None of these reasons are (yet) enough to motivate me
> to break trust and typeset a copy for myself; but they
> aren't entirely frivolous, I think.

Can't you just buy a new copy?

[Robin Fairbairns]

Lee Rudolph <lrud...@panix.com> writes:

> Giorgos Keramidas <kera...@ceid.upatras.gr> writes:
>
>>The important question is: why do you need to typeset your own version?
>
> An answer to this question occurred to me today, when trying
> to track down a (non-La)TeX command I couldn't quite remember.
> (I did find it, and Knuth's explanation was admirably helpful.)

there are plenty of searchable resources that return tex and plain tex
commands.

> That is: you (I) might want (not, certainly, *need*) to typeset
> a copy in PDF so as greatly to facilitate those searches that
> even Knuth's excellent index doesn't always make easy.
>
> And (not entirely incidentally) someone whose copy of the
> TeXBook is 23 years old might also want another copy that
> is either purely digital and/or printed (as mine was not)
> on acid-free paper and/or (as mine certainly no longer is)
> without any pages that are beginning to lose their grips
> on the spiral binding.

when that started to happen to mine, i bought a hardback copy. i keep
the falling apart version at work, where it doesn't "stand out"...

> None of these reasons are (yet) enough to motivate me
> to break trust and typeset a copy for myself;

good.

> but they aren't entirely frivolous, I think.

the publishing industry is only slowly making its way into the area of
electronic books. the various e-readers have provided impetus, but it
will likely be a long time before i can get a copy of the tex book for
my kindle. ("new" books, maybe sooner, but i'm not sure about that,
even.)