mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Joris van der Hoeven <address@hidden>]

Michael John Downes wrote on 9 Jun 2002:

> > 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.
> 
> It has been called "skyline fitting" or something like that in some past
> discussions about possible improvements for TeX.

Thanks for your detailed reply about these interesting typesetting issues.

> > 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.
> 
> There are two opposed constraints.
> 
> 1. Use enough space between two lines of complicated math so that the
> reader's eye can easily avoid confusion.
> 
> 2. Don't use so much space that your book ends up taking 10% more paper
> when printed and therefore costing 10% more to all the readers.

I agree with these two constraints. Also, I must say that too much space
between lines actually looks ugly and it makes me think of people who want
to artificially increase the number of pages that they wrote.

> Good skyline fitting by TeXmacs would be better than both of the other,
> inferior solutions.

What we do is the following: there is a minimal vertical separation
between the logical boxes (which usually correspond to the ink)
on successive lines which are at the same horizontal positions.
When the logicial boxes drift away from each other horizontally,
there is a minimal distance (environment variable) from which on
"shoving-in" takes place. This ensures that your criterion 1
is met as well as possible when shoving in.

> Phil Mendelsohn wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Be careful though. Do you still think the same if your desire is
> reworded in other terms: "I would like to pay 5% more for all my books
> and journals" ? :-) The compromise between clarity and cost that has
> been worked out over many years by commercial publishers need not be
> regarded as beyond question, but neither should it be dismissed without
> first taking a hard look at the tradeoffs.

In fact, I took the same default spacing as TeX/LaTeX...

Best wishes, Joris