[luatex] Outdated Website

[Paul Isambert]

Reinhard Kotucha <reinhard.kotucha at web.de> a écrit:
> On 2013-12-09 at 09:28:51 +0000, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> 
>  > Patrick Gundlach <patrick at gundla.ch> wrote:
>  > 
>  > > > Well, I recently had to repair broken PDF files created by
>  > > > InDesign.  LuaTeX doesn't create invalid PDF.
>  > > 
>  > > and your point is...?
>  > 
>  > to respond to the earlier post that claimed commercial products
>  > dont do things like that, perhaps.
> 
> To be more precise, I tried to make clear that pdfTeX is the first
> program that implemented the HZ algorithm *and* produced valid PDF.
> One has to take this into account when comparing these programs.
> 
> The HZ algorithm is not more valuable than Microsoft Word's colorful
> user interface if the output isn't appropriate.
> 
> BTW, I've seen extremely ugly files created with InDesign.  Sure, in
> most cases the authors are responsible.  Since everybody who owns an
> Apple claims to be a designer, no wonder.

Nasty Reinhard :)

To play the devil’s advocate: anybody with Linux think they’re a
programmer (me included)...

> But I encountered many PDF files produced by InDesign which couldn't
> be processed properly.  Sometimes AR complains, sometimes the PS
> interpreter of the printer crashes, sometimes not everything I see in
> AR appears in the printed output...  I never had the time nor the will
> to investigate further.  However, a few weeks ago my boss asked me to
> repair a broken PDF file produced by InDesign.  With PDFtk,
> Ghostscript, and Emacs I could fix it in areasonable amount of time.
> But I'm still amazed that they introduced such a *stupid* bug.
> 
> If we compare programs we have to compare their output in the first
> place.

I’d say that’s slightly unfair to InDesign, given that you’re
comparing PDFTeX out of the box to InDesign, which is rather, I
suppose, equivalent to PDFTeX and a format and a good deal of
packages. And you know that creating corrupt PDF is quite possible
with bad code in PDFTeX.

> I said this because Jan said:
> 
>  > InDesign is currently de facto standard in professional typesetting
>  > - it offers excellent typography, support for Unicode, Open Type
>  > features, color management, produces PDFs compatible with various
>  > standards - all this in a handy GUI.
> 
> It's nice that InDesign produces PDFs compatible with various
> standards.  But it should comply with ISO-32000 at least.  It seems
> that Adobe isn't aware of it.
> 
> Jan, I'm living in the TeX world for more than two decades and I
> believe that I know a little bit about typesetting.  If you want to
> know what "professional typesetting" stands for then buy a book which
> is *not* typeset with TeX.

Again, slightly unfair. Most good books are also produced without TeX,
and tons of bad books are produced with it. I agree with Hans on that
point: the tool is important, but the user is crucial.

> There is no "professional typesetting" anymore.  In the past
> publishers took care of proof-reading and gave the manuscript to a
> professional typesetter.
> 
> Nowadays publishers don't care about these things anymore and ask
> authors to provide a "camera ready copy".  What is "professional
> typesetting" then?  Sure, if you have an Apple you are a professional
> typesetter per se.  Same if you're using InDesign.  Even if you don't
> have the slightest clue about typesetting.

To all that I must agree, unfortunately.

Last week I had to check the proof of a paper of mine; each time a bit
of text was in italics, the first letter was left in roman – and the
proof had been done in InDesign. The same publisher – one of the most
important in the field, if only because they publish almost anything –
has been releasing books with such basic typographic errors for years.

> After all, I have the impression that the **de facto** standard in
> "professional" typesetting is not InDesign but Microsoft Word.

No, the de facto standard is Microsoft Word in the hands of somebody
with no clue about typesetting.

Here in France, it’s a small miracle when I see an “fi” ligature.

Best,
Paul