[lug] looking for TeX viewer/print

[rotering at animalcules.com]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 01:05:05PM -0600, D. Stimits wrote:

> What format would you suggest which: (a) is readable by non-technical
> windows users (e.g., IE or Word can import it and the imported version
> looks like what I see from Linux...PostScript fails here), (b) prints
> correctly from default viewing tools of windows (html fails here), and
> (c) has at least some application available on Linux which will allow me
> to print it correctly (PostScript works if the PostScript output
> actually looks like the screen view) without rebooting to windows? It is
> a tall order, and I don't think there is a solution that is completely
> satisfactory.

LaTeX -> DVI      (latex)
DVI -> PostScript (dvips)
PS -> PDF         (ps2pdf - comes with ghostscript 5.50 
                            (and possibly earlier versions))

One drawback of this production cycle is that ghostscript font
rendering leaves something to be desired.  This means that the PDF
file produced looks a bit shabby under Windows, but it prints
perfectly well.

> One thing I am frustrated with by plain ascii is lack of color (this
> isn't just for resume's, but includes other printing, e.g., syntax
> highlighted source code).

LaTeX does color.  Oddly enough, xdvi doesn't (on my machine).  But
the dvips-produced PostScript looks just fine on the screen (and on
the paper).

Here's a short LaTeX color demo ripped out of _A Guide to LaTeX_ by
Kopka & Daly:


\documentclass[12pt,letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage[dvips]{color}
\usepackage{multicol}
\pagestyle{empty}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0pt}
\setlength{\textwidth}{16cm}
\setlength{\textheight}{22cm}
\setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}

\begin{document}
\renewcommand*{\DefineNamedColor}[4]{%
        \textcolor[named]{#2}{\rule{7mm}{7mm}}\quad
        \texttt{#2}\strut\\}

\begin{center}\Large Named colors in \texttt{dvipsnam.def}
\end{center}
\begin{multicols}{3}
\input{dvipsnam.def}
\end{multicols}
\end{document}

> It sounds like LaTeX also has an ability to work more in a free-form
> way, is this correct?  Can I work without a style specification?

You must specify a documentclass.  But, like any other extremely
flexible tool, you are free to completely ignore the specs of the
class and do whatever goofy things you like.

LaTeX was designed, though, to relieve you of as much of the problems
of layout as possible, leaving you free to think about (*gasp*)
content.  This has been mentioned in this thread previously but it
bears repeated mention.

[Long rant about how the great unwashed have been convinced that it's
cool, nay, *necessary*, to festoon their correspondence with multiple
fonts, colors, and dingbats retroactively deleted.]

I will grant you that a r\'esum\'e is somewhat of a special case,
requiring a more specialized layout than your average document. [BTW,
note the ease with which diacritical marks are added mid-stream.  This
is in direct contrast to most word processors which require you to
leave the keyboard and head for the mouse.  One of the many advantages
of a WYSIWYM publishing system.]  I've been doing mine with LaTeX for
the past five years or so.  I sat down for a few hours and hammered
out some custom macros (three, to be exact) and I haven't done anyting
but change the content ever since.

> Btw, I've never seen color in xdvi, does xdvi support color?

You can set foreground and background colors, but, as above, I can't
get it to display color any other way.

> Monitoring through xdvi, and editing elsewhere, is a lot of work
> when just maintaining and altering a document (one that might have
> minor changes on a daily basis).

[This rant just keeps trying to resurface! :-)] What is it that makes
people want to see things as they will be rendered while the content
is being created?  Is it the fact that people are used to managers who
will happily sign off on a report that says nothing but "I like to eat
feces!  Feces is (are?) yummy!"  over and over again as long as it's
got lots of funky fonts and other geegaws?

If you are not a professional typesetter/illustrator/editor, fonts and
paragraph widths need never be above your conscious horizon.  It
amazes me that people will willingly (happily!) burden themselves with
this stuff.

> It seems I'm going to have to learn to do this though. I already
> have some TeX references, but they are primarily mathematics
> references, and don't cover topics like color.

The book mentioned above (ISBN0-201-39825-7) has a brief discussion of
color.  The dvips package documentation might also have information on
using color.

Please don't let the LaTeX snippet above scare you about using color.
It's as easy as the following:

%----------------------------------------------------
\documentclass[12pt,letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage{color}

\begin{document}
{\color{blue} This sentence is blue.}  This one is not.
\end{document}
%----------------------------------------------------

> I wish there was an intermediate TeX and intermediate
> PostScript...designed to actually provide good printing control, but
> not designed to be a publishing tool with control to a
> ten-thousandth of an inch.

Just because that power is there does not compel you to use it.  It is
easy to construct a template once and then merely fill it in each time
you want to use it.  Heck, the default document classes are probably
sufficient for the vast majority of regular people's DTP requirements.

> I can't seem to get easier word processing documents to print right,
> so I'm forced to learn TeX or PostScript and write code to print a
> nice document...I can no longer just do simple edits and be done, I
> have to manually rewrite raw document tags.

I think the idea of "To use (La)TeX I have to write code to print a
nice document" is a myth.  The truth is that in order to do any
formatting, font changing, etc. in a WYSIWYG editor you must
effectifely "Write code".  Either you must use some special keystrokes
or activate a menu (which is even worse because now you must remove a
hand from the keyboard to fiddle with a mouse).  This is no more or
less difficult that typing a few symbols in mid stream.  How easy is
it to use diacritical marks (e.g. r\'esum\'e) in Word, or StarOffice?
IMHO people have been bamboozled into thinking that using a mouse is
more efficient that using tags, etc.  Even the phrase "raw document
tags" implies some kind of bleeding edge, \"ubercomplicated process
when, in reality, it's just as easy (or even {\em easier}) than using
a menu.

I apologize for being unable to contain myself.