News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Word processors are ditching equation editors in favour o... by bscphil on Saturday June 15, 2019 @06:40PM (#20192629)
> But I use LaTeX mainly because the resulting documents simply look better, and I imagine that’s a major selling point for many.

I've encountered a real rabbit hole here, and I'm not sure what to do about it. The naive view is that LaTeX does typesetting the best way. If you want better typesetting, use LaTeX, and if you're using LaTeX, you're done.

This turns out not to be true, which is upsetting to those of us ingrained in the LaTeX ecosystem and used to thinking of it as the best way. The first thing you're likely to learn is that you need the microtype package. Without this package, kerning is not as good as it could be. (Which raises the question - if LaTeX is the final form of a typesetting language, why not do it right by default?)

But the problems don't end there. Modern OTF / TTF fonts have a lot of typesetting information that isn't fully retained if you convert the fonts to use with LaTeX. So if you want modern font support, you can't use LaTeX at all, you switch to XeTeX!

At this point you realize that the microtype package you previously learned was crucial isn't compatible with XeTeX, so you can't use it.

So it's a Catch-22. LaTeX is for people who are obsessed with perfect typesetting. But perfect typesetting can't be achieved (currently, to the best of my knowledge) in any TeX family language.

Re:Word processors are ditching equation editors in favour o... by amluto on Saturday June 15, 2019 @06:54PM (#20192692)
LuaTeX seems to be the best for overall typesetting quality. You can get proper rendering of modern fonts.

IMO the underlying issue is that TeX can’t really be parsed by anything other than Tex because it’s too full of macros that change the language. I think a better language would generate a well-defined AST, and different tools could compete to render it well.

Re:Word processors are ditching equation editors in favour o... by bscphil on Saturday June 15, 2019 @07:47PM (#20192920)
What makes LuaTeX better than XeTeX, as far as typography is concerned?
Re:Word processors are ditching equation editors in favour o... by anaoum on Sunday June 16, 2019 @04:36AM (#20194515)
Much better microtype support
Re:Word processors are ditching equation editors in favour o... by throw0101a on Saturday June 15, 2019 @10:54PM (#20193570)
> But perfect typesetting can't be achieved (currently, to the best of my knowledge) in any TeX family language.

What is/are the alternatives? Word? Apple Pages? LibreOffice? Markdown-via-pandoc? DocBook? FrameMaker (Windows only)? Other?

Out of the box, what gives better PDF/paper output better than something that is TeX-based?

Re:Word processors are ditching equation editors in favour o... by sjy on Saturday June 15, 2019 @11:25PM (#20193676)
The standard tool for professional typesetting and book design – Adobe InDesign.
Re:Word processors are ditching equation editors in favour o... by stenl on Sunday June 16, 2019 @02:46AM (#20194181)
InDesign is great, but how do you typeset equations in it? Genuine question, as I’ve searched far and wide for a viable solution. The best I have so far is ”create in another software and insert as an image”, which is unsatisfactory.
Re:Word processors are ditching equation editors in favour o... by throw0101a on Sunday June 16, 2019 @06:51AM (#20194879)
> Adobe InDesign.

I've always seen ID as a graphical design tool and not as a manuscript authoring/publishing tool.

Sure, you can plop a bunch of text in there, but it seems to be that it is very structure-free when it comes to layout, whereas the stuff I mentioned is more line-oriented, and therefore more focused on text. Does it have things like footnote/reference tracking? Spell- and grammar-checking?

Re:Word processors are ditching equation editors in favour o... by sjy on Sunday June 16, 2019 @07:58AM (#20195054)
It's not a manuscript authoring tool, but I thought we were talking about alternatives for 'perfect typesetting.' I don't think there's any tool that is ideal for both authoring and typesetting, but since we do have this special word 'manuscript' to describe a work that hasn't been typeset yet, maybe it is useful to continue thinking of authoring as a separate task (at least if you aspire to perfection), rather than something that needs to be done at the same time, using the same tools, as typesetting.
Re:Word processors are ditching equation editors in favour o... by beefhash on Sunday June 16, 2019 @01:37AM (#20194011)
Hasn't QuarkXPress been regaining market share due to Adobe's licensing policies? How does that hold up?
Re:Word processors are ditching equation editors in favour o... by throw0101a on Sunday June 16, 2019 @06:53AM (#20194887)
Isn't QuarkXPress, like InDesign, more graphical design-focused and not so much manuscript authoring/publishing-focused?
Re:Word processors are ditching equation editors in favour o... by beefhash on Sunday June 16, 2019 @10:54AM (#20195751)
That is my understanding, too, but my understanding of this subthread was about achieving the best possible results in general, rather than just in the subset of manuscript authoring tooling.