emacs-orgmode@gnu.org archives
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: "Juan Manuel Macías" <maciaschain@posteo.net>
To: copropriete27ruemoret@gmail.com
Cc: orgmode <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: how to export to odt with 11 or 10 pt fonts? Default font setting
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 02:52:22 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y271d21l.fsf@posteo.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3dd4ac2d7ddbf4ad8a0004571b886db7c961a711.camel@gmail.com> (copropriete27ruemoret@gmail.com's message of "Sat, 09 Oct 2021 23:17:31 +0200")

copropriete27ruemoret@gmail.com writes:

> Unless you insist on using Computer Modern with a word processing
> programm (yes, it can be done, at least with the OTF versions of these
> fonts), or Times New Roman/Cambria with LaTeX (again possible thanks to
> their OTF incarnation) and slaving to force LaTeX choices on Word (or
> Word choices on LaTeX, much harder and probably abysmally stupid), your
> resulting documents will vary for much larger reasons : floats
> handling, table structures, layout structure, different ligatures,
> different kernings, etc...

It is not enough to use the same font nor the same font technology
(otf). In my previous post I referred to microtypegraphical processes
that influence drastically the formal aspect, regardless of the font and
the 'glyph level', layout, and other macro typographycal elements. Word
processors do not have the TeX line breaking algorithm, for example, nor
the horizontal scaling and optical margin alignment properties that were
first implemented in pdfTeX (these properties are based on the theories
of Herman Zapf on the Gutenberg Bible and were implemented for the first
time in an experimental software older than TeX called hz-program). That
is why I always recommend that documents made in a word processor are
never fully justified: word processors *do not know how to justify*
(HTML also does not know how to do it) and the result is usually bad and
full of rivers. And there is the fact also that word processors work on
postscript points. As I said in the previous message, there are many
more factors, but these merely physical (and 'invisible') factors are
important.

Even software like Adobe InDesign, which implements the TeX algorithm
and the microtype properties of Zapf (in a rather sloppy way, since it
does so with generic values applied to the character and not to the
glyph) does not achieve the precision of TeX; therefore, there may be
variations.

In any case, I am talking about processes at the lowest level
(microtypographical). Generally speaking, word processors cannot imitate
TeX. But TeX can imitate word: just disable TeX algorithm (\sloppypar)
and use postscript points values. But, except as an experiment, it
doesn't make much sense...

> BTW: since most of what is typeset nowadays will be used as PDF, HTML
> and/or epub (and paper-printed only for archival purposes), it is high
> time to revisit typography funamentals (currently based on more than 5
> centuries of use of the *physics* of the "paper" medium) to adapt them
> to the physics of computer display and the physiology of human reading
> of this new medium (which is *not* the same as "paper" reading).

The PDF format has evolved a lot since the 90s, but it is still, in
essence, 'printed paper that you can see on screen', device independent.
Paradoxically, it was a revolution in printing, and it was of crucial
importance in the extinction of the old photomechanical printing
methods, which were complex and extremely expensive. As for the
relationship of typography with digital media, or new media, that is a
long topic. But, in any possible medium, I think that what Stanley
Morison (author of Times Roman) said will always prevail in good
typography:

#+begin_quote
Typography is the efficient means to an essentially
utilitarian and only accidentally aesthetic end, for the enjoyment of
patterns is rarely the reader’s chief aim. Therefore, any disposition of
printing material which, whatever the intention, has the effect of
coming between the author and the reader is wrong.
#+end_quote

Best regards,

Juan Manuel 



  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-10  2:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-09 21:17 how to export to odt with 11 or 10 pt fonts? Default font setting copropriete27ruemoret
2021-10-10  2:52 ` Juan Manuel Macías [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-10-06 15:18 Uwe Brauer
2021-10-07  7:26 ` Eric S Fraga
2021-10-07 12:27   ` Uwe Brauer
2021-10-07 13:57     ` Eric S Fraga
2021-10-07 11:24 ` Juan Manuel Macías
2021-10-07 12:28   ` Uwe Brauer
2021-10-07 12:58     ` Juan Manuel Macías
2021-10-07 12:59     ` Peter Neilson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.orgmode.org/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87y271d21l.fsf@posteo.net \
    --to=maciaschain@posteo.net \
    --cc=copropriete27ruemoret@gmail.com \
    --cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).