\title{Malcolm's Gleanings}
\author{Malcolm Clark}
\begin{article}
\section{Quotes}
`\LaTeX, developed at UCLA\dots' Seybold Report on Publishing
Systems, volume~20, number~7, 1990.

`When I first started using \TeX, I would have said that
if you don't actually need it you should opt for one of
the more friendly alternatives. With the benefit of a few
hours experience behind me, however, I have to say that
I'm becoming hooked. Don't exclude it on the grounds of
perceived user unfriendliness, since you'll be throwing
away the chance of first-class output.'' Computer Shopper,
number~52, June 1992, pages 128 \& 130.


\section{Frame 0, \TeX\ 1}
A recent advertisement from Framemaker claimed that it
`runs on more platforms than any other publishing
program'. This is manifestly incorrect and the
was referred to the Advertising Standards
Authority as an example of an advertisement which was not
`honest and truthful'. The ASA upheld the complaint, as
outlined in their Monthly Report 12 for 1992, released on
May 13th. A consequence of this decision will be that the
offending advertisement will have to be withdrawn or
re-written.

Because of \TeX's public domain nature, we have no
obvious way of combating the misinformation purveyed by
commercial vendors of alternative publishing systems, and
it depends upon the motivation of individuals to
challenge such advertisements. That means you. If you
can't be bothered yourself, forward any misleading
information of this type to me, and I'll take it up.
We've been nice guys for too long.

\section{Book Review}
{\em Books and Printing, A Treasury for Typophiles}, Paul A
Bennett, editor, Frederic C Biel, Savannah, 1991 (reissue
of 1951 edition), 417pp, ISBN 0-913720-72-0

This is a collection of short articles (from many
sources) collected by Paul Bennett. It covers many
aspects of printing and publishing, historical,
aesthetic, discursive and bombastic. Some very well-known
names are present: I picked the book up originally
because it had Beatrice Warde's  famous essay `Printing
should be invisible', where she elaborates her metaphor
of drawing a parallel between wine in a fine crystal
goblet and typography. She also coins the phrase `stunt
typographer' for those who amaze with `vulgar
ostentation'.  As a colleague of Stanley Morison, it is
natural then to skip to Morison's `First principles of
typography'. It is in this prescription for appropriate
typography that Morison expounds his belief that the
average line should contain between 10 and 12 words. But
there is much more here, often stated rather than
demonstrated, but usually with some appeal to a plausible
explanation. The underlying theme however is little
different to Warde's. Eric Gill's article on `Typography'
contains the recommendation that `using Italics to
emphasize single words should be abandoned in favour of
the use of ordinary Lower-case with spaces between the
letters (l\,e\,t\,t\,e\,r-s\,p\,a\,c\,e\,d)'. Gill,
perhaps the last flowering of the Arts and Crafts
movement, notes that `(it) is not that Industrialism has
made things worse,  but that it has made them different',
and observation that might be applied to the new
publishing of the 90s. Goudy too recounts some of the
thinking and beliefs which he put into action in the
design of his typefaces. Orcutt's `The anatomy of a book'
identifies the physical structure which is partially
exemplified in SGML and \LaTeX, but fills in some of the
details of the whys. This article is used as the basis of
a symposium which is given here too, discussing whether
there had been any material changes in that structure.

What is missing from this book? It is a very American
view of the world: perhaps one might be gracious and
extend that to `english speaking', but in truth the vast
majority of writers are American. Virtually the only time
that `comptemorary' European typography makes an
appearance is in Updike's round condemnation of
the Bauhaus School, and especially its rejection of upper
case. This illustrates  number of points: typographers,
as exemplified in this book, are conservative -- this is
often stated as a good thing by the writers, and their
reasoning seems valid today. They are essentially book
people, where the function of the typography is to convey
meaning. Advertising typography is something else. But
this conservatism spills over into what appears to be a
total isolation from the political and social context.
Somehow they manage to realise the social impact of
Gutenberg, but not of the Bauhaus' inherent political
statement in removing the distinction between upper and
lower case. (Yes, Gill is more aware of the social
context, but he was English.)  This is therefore a rather
one-sided or even lop-sided view of the world. Recalling
that most of the articles were first published when the
USA was pursuing its policy of isolationism, this is
perhaps not too surprising. I would still have loved to
see but one article by (say) Tschichold.

This quibble aside, there is much to mine in here, from
details of Shaw's relationship with his printers and
publishers (following his strict instructions on word
spacing, they hyphenated \hbox{a-n} and \hbox{t-he}: he
relented), to supposed histories of the alphabet. Besides
the chart from Dwiggens, a rather remarkable feature of
the book is that each article is in a different typeface.
Besides giving the rare opportunity to compare typefaces
when many other factors are held constant, like page
size, paper quality, inking and so on, it has the rather
convenient feature of making it easier to spot when
articles change, if you are flicking through looking for
the start of a particular article.


\section{A sidelight on `\TeX\ in Practice'}

One of the events of this year was the appearance, finally, of Stephan
von Bechtolsheim's monumental {\em \TeX\ in Practice} volumes. An
interesting reaction came in a Usenet posting by Professor David
Rogers:
 
``As some of you have perhaps noted, I am the Editor of the {\it
Monographs in Visual Communication Series} for Springer-Verlag
which includes {\it \TeX\ in Practice} by Stephen von Bechtolsheim.
The forward in the volume is {\bf not} what I wrote. It was
modified by Stephen without my concurrence. The unmodified version
is given below.  I think the second paragraph is particularly
interesting as I have noticed a significant dichotomy in the way
different people approach \TeX.
 
Further, I take {\bf no} responsibility for the quality of the
typesetting of the book nor for the quality of the English or the
proofreading. I consider the book a prime example of a very poor
design and typesetting job. The English is atrocious and the
proofreading is nearly non-existent.  Both the editorial and
production departments at Springer-Verlag and I tried to get these
defects corrected but with little success.
 
Having said that why did we publish the book? Basically because it
contains very valuable information about the use of \TeX.
Information that the \TeX\ community very much needs. After all, the
fundamental purpose of a book is to convey information. So the
decision was made to ignore the defects and publish it anyway.
 
I trust that you can ignore the presentation defects in the book
and concentrate on the information.''

\subsection*{The original foreword} 
\begin{quote}
You might well wonder why {\it \TeX\ in Practice} is a part of
the Monographs in Visualization series. However, if you
really think about typesetting, especially fine typesetting,
you soon realize that, in large part, it is a {\it visual art\/}
as well as a science. This is especially true for mathematical
typesetting. As fine and robust as are the algorithms upon
which \TeX\ is based, they do not produce aesthetically perfect
results. Visually one frequently wants a little more (or less) space before
a subscript or superscript or a little less space above the
denominator or below the numerator in a fraction or this page opening
would look a little better if the line below the last
equation was pushed to the next page, etc. Fine typesetting
is a visual art form. Fortunately, Donald Knuth, in his
wisdom, recognized this and provided \TeX\ with unsurpassed
capabilities for accomplishing these small visual adjustments
so critical to fine typesetting.
 
\TeX\ itself can be considered from at least two significant and quite
different viewpoints. The first is as a typesetting {\it system\/} in
which the typesetter has precise control of the placement of
characters and white space, the design and make-up of lines,
equations, paragraphs, and pages.  The second is as a macro-extensible
{\it programming\/} language.  Fundamentally, \TeX\ in Practice
addresses \TeX\ from the latter viewpoint.
 
The four volumes of Stephan v. Bechtolsheim's long awaited {\it \TeX\
in Practice} present a comprehensive view of \TeX. His thorough
discussion of each aspect of \TeX\ is liberally laced with cogent
illustrative examples.  Many of these examples represent complete,
ready to use macros that enhance the capabilities of \TeX.  These
examples are of particular interest to both the typesetter and the
\TeX\ programmer. The typesetter can often solve an immediate problem
by either using one of the examples directly or by making minor
changes to adapt it to the problem at hand. The \TeX\ programmer can
use the examples, along with Stephan's detailed discussion, to
increase both the depth and breadth of his or her knowledge of
\TeX. The value of the text is further enhanced by the author's
concerted effort to explain the reasoning behind each topic or
example. In many cases, he details the inner workings of \TeX's
processing of the example.
 
Stephan is to be congratulated on producing a work of fundamental
and lasting value to the \TeX\ and publishing community.
\end{quote}
\end{article}