mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Joris van der Hoeven <address@hidden>]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Phil Mendelsohn wrote:

> I just checked, and I am not pleased with the interline spacing there
> either.  Apparently TeXmacs adjusts the spacing when the cursor gets
> to the descender in question.  Say you are putting the polynomial
> expression \frac{1 - x^{m+1}}{1-x} at the end of a line.  When the
> line wraps, the new line is set close to the previous one until the
> cursor comes under the fraction.

> If this line is shorter than the top one, then you end up with lines
> that are not spaced in a typographically correct way -- they are
> unbalanced.  The space for the next line should be augmented as soon
> as a descender is placed, not when the cursor gets under it.

I don't agree and I discussed this issue with other TeX/LaTeX specialists:
the "shoving in" technique of TeXmacs is a welcome typesetting innovation.
When their is nothing below the fraction, there is no reason to descend
the second line more than needed. I do not see what you mean by "unbalanced".
In my opinion, one should stick to a constant line separation whenever
possible, that is, whenever there is sufficient room between the ink
of successive lines. Notice finally that it is impossible to descend
the fraction further than the top of an x on the next line plus
the minimal whitespace between ink; we are not attempting to fill
all space on the page...

> Even then, it appears that we're a little too stingy with interline
> spacing.  I'd like to see about 5% more in _all_ of TeXmacs, I think.
> It is a small detail, I know, but one that gives me pause when using
> TeXmacs to generate finished products.

That is possible, but I use a similar spacing as in TeX.
If you can give me more precise evidence that the spacing is 5% too small,
then I am willing to consider a slightly larger spacing.

Yours, Joris