Talk:Typesetting

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Typesetting article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Citation for info on the fate of minicomputer-based systems

A reference or citation is needed for this statement added by user:Dsagman –

"...By the year 2000, this industry segment had shrunk to serving primarily educational, reference, and professional publisers. In addition, the majority of this work, especially keying and data conversion, has moved off-shore to countries such as India and the Philippines."

I snipped it out of the article for the meantime, until it can be verified.

The original paragraph for context:

"Before the 1980s practically all typesetting for publishers and advertisers was performed by specialist typesetting companies. These companies, many of which in the US were located in rural Pennsylvania, New England or the Midwest where labor was cheap but within a few hours distance of the major publishing centers, performed keyboarding, editing and production of paper or film output, and formed a large component of the graphic arts industry. By the year 2000, this industry segment had shrunk to serving primarily educational, reference, and professional publisers. In addition, the majority of this work, especially keying and data conversion, has moved off-shore to countries such as India and the Philippines."

Arbo | talk 14:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the main page was this note:

note: deal with offset litho, production of a flong, etc. etc. here

I removed it because it should belong on talk, not the main page. Perhaps the author of the note would like to complete the task. Until then, let's not clutter the entry itself. MShonle 22:06, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Breaks within chapters in printing

The questions and imperfect answers are copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk. I wish someone here would know the answer. -- Toytoy 15:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

In many books, especially in fiction, "breaks" in the text (by which I mean one or two completely blank lines separating groups of paragraphs) are seen at irregular intervals within chapters. Typically these breaks are found every few pages or so (although the spacing varies considerably), and they usually occur at the end of a "scene" or some other transition point. They break up a chapter into several sections, they provide logical stopping points for readers who want to quit before the end of a chapter, and they make it easier to find your starting place when you begin reading again at a later time. Somewhere I have read a specific name (a printer's term) to describe these "breaks". I believe I also read that if one of these breaks occurs at the end (or beginning) of a page, where it would not ordinarily be apparent, the printer should insert an ellipsis or similar indicator. My question is: what is the correct term for a break of this type in printing, and what are the proper rules for dealing with them? --DannyZ 03:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess these breaks are called "blank lines":

Blank lines. If blank lines are used to indicate a lapse of time or a break in the continuity, a page should not break at this blank, for then the blank line is completely lost. The blank should be within the page with at least two lines of type between it and the top or the bottom of a page, If asterisks are used for this purpose, they may stand at the bottom of a page, but not at the top. (Words into Type, 1948, p. 154).

If you need more updated information, please check the latest edition of The Chicago Manual of Style. I don't have that book at hand right now. -- Toytoy 08:13, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Errr... I'm pretty sure I've seen an article somewhere on Wikipedia on that topic, and they had a more technical name. — Kieff | Talk 10:00, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

When I was employed in the Composition Department at Kingsport Press book manufacturer from 1969 to 2003, we called them "space breaks". They were usually but not always full lines of space (one body lead sinkage). Usually a space break indicating passage of time in narrative text (essentially an untitled sub chapter break) had to be maintained with text above and text below even if it meant facing pages had to be run a line short or a line long to push lines of text around in the chapter. Other shops I believe used the term "section break". --Naaman Brown (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing Photo

The photo with the caption 'Movable metal type' is not correct. The type should be in reverse, so it would read properly when used to transfer ink onto paper. Looking closer, the logo on the type holder seems backwards also, so my guess is the negative of the original photograph was flipped so the common phrase could be read properly. In the context of this article it should be flipped back. --ArtJazd Fri Jul 29 10:55 2005 (PST)

"Typesetting involves the presentation of textual material in an aesthetic form on paper or some other media." - Surely, it should be 'medium'? Reader, 8 Oct 2005

Weasley phrase about TeX

211.30.107.214 replaced "has" in the passage about TeX to "is considered to have". Okay, I can appreciate why, but "considered" is weasley and needs to be qualified. Who considers TeX to have set high standards? And what's the source? This criticism should be applied to the original, ie: what was the source for "...has set high standards..." Who, or what group of people say it has? —Arbo 19:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the issue of attribution, the reason for leaving it as "has" and not changing it to "is considered to have" set high standards for setting mathematics, is that it either has or it hasn't. There are no two ways about it. If experts on TeX say it has, then it has. Period. If non-experts say it hasn't, they're incorrect because they're not qualified to say so. The purpose of every article on Wikipedia is to convey expert knowledge from experts on a given topic. If there is a substantial body of opinion that says TeX has not set high standards for setting mathematics, we need to know who, and where and when they published their opinion. If those details are not provided I will revert the edit by 211.30.107.214 —Arbo 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst i don't really care which phrase is used, as it is pretty immaterial in the end (angels on heads of pins etc) it is possible that the experts might disagree. Some might say it has. Others might say it hasn't. Period. Then we are getting into an argument about which experts views we should be accepting. And it doesn't really matter. Frelke 21:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"it is considered to have" is semantic quibbling and a form of wordiness/writerliness. It complicates the sentence, and its a weasely turn of phrase. Its bad writing.

Good writing is simple and easy to understand.

Have you read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words? "The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts... ...If we add a source for the opinion, the reader can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability."

it is possible that the experts might disagree. Some might say it has. Others might say it hasn't.

Fine by me---let's have some sources from these anonymous experts.

Then we are getting into an argument about which experts views we should be accepting.

No :-) I'm not arguing about which views to accept, just asking for sources for those views. Since we don't have any sources for expert opinions on this, the passage is best kept simple and to the point. Arbo 04:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than revert the edit I have reduced the weasle phrase. I don't think the previous edit was vandalism but made in good faith. But wordy. Arbo 04:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weird paragraph

That paragraph about TeX is weird. It is entitled "TeX" but most of it does not talk about TeX at all.—Gniw (Wing) 19:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Only the first sentence talks about TeX. The rest of it details other hypertext systems with "attractive WYSIWIG interfaces". —Arbo 03:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This one has an easy solution:

===TeX and other digital systems===

The TeX system created by Donald E. Knuth is another widespread and powerful automated typesetting system that has set high standards, especially for setting mathematics.

The arrival of SGML/XML as the document model made possible other typesetting engines like Penta, Miles 33 OASYS, Xyvision XPP, FrameMaker, Advent 3B2, and InDesign, which allow the users to program their typesetting process around the SGML/XML with the help of scripting languages popular. Some of them provide attractive WYSIWYG interfaces (unlike standard TeX) with support for XML standards and Unicode to attract a wider spectrum of users.

Same information rearranged with a better heading. The paragraph about TeX needs more info. I have emailed office@tug.org, inviting one of the staff of TeX Users Group to contribute some basic info on TeX.—Arbo 10:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My typo in last edit summary shouldd read: "Split the difference and the ripples magnify. This way the article is more structured." :^) Arbo 10:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

intermediate period needs more coverage

The article goes straight from the letter-press era to the digital-era. But there was a considerable period between the two of analogue offset printing, light-tables, paste-ups, camera-readies, etc.

Digital era - Fairchild

I suspect that the Fairchild that is intended here is Fairchild Semiconductor, but I have no idea where to find a source for it. If someone knows sources for this info, citation would be excellent. -Sopoforic 02:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lettering

The stone carving article says "Stone carving that is done to produce lettering is more often referred to as Lettering." which was forwarded to this page. However there is no discussion of Lettering on this page. I do not think that typesetting is the correct place for forwarding lettering and the discussion does not seem to have any details on stone carving of symbols, letters. Any ideas on where it might have gone? Synapse001 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original redirect was to Calligraphy, which doesn't deal with your question either. It does seem to be a better fit, however, and I'm inclined to change it back, subject to any objections. --Old Moonraker 14:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK no objections I'll revert it to Calligraphy. Synapse001: sorry I couldn't help with your question – it's something that should be in. --Old Moonraker 10:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Old Moonraker 06:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error in integral

The integral on the image showing int(f(x),0,3) is mathematical nonsense. The integral is definite integral, while the result on the right side of the equation is antiderivative. The simplest solution is to remove bounds of the integration.

212.2.99.88 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC) et21@go2.pl[reply]

Typesetting and its emergence

Typesetting involves the presentation of textual material in graphic form on paper or some other medium. Even STM typesetting is emerging alternatives to traditional publishing.Also the editorial quality of your work matters alot. Infact Manuscript editing and proofreading are broad categories and encompass an array of editing levels. The idea is to make publication free from typographical, grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors.

Typesetting Books, journals and periodicals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.242.197 (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Free from typographical, grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors". Right...

I was going to remove this advert, as I did from the article, but perhaps it should be left to speak for itself! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1970s and 1980s

A list of minicomputer-based typesetting software, said to have originated in the 1970s, included Xyvision. But Xyvision was incorporated, and shipped its first product, in the early 1980s. Therefore, I added "and 1980s" to the wording. Publius3 05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stickfight

"Stickfight is a fun little interactive time-waster"

On Wikipedia it looks more like vandalism. This edit reverted and user warned. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

xkcd readers have a history of starting concerted, time-wasting edit wars on Wikipedia and this reference to the comic made me think that this may be another one. Second opinion requested at WP:ANI. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney in a code comment in the TeX paragraph

I went ahead and removed this. It was commented out by someone else, and as another editor said, it's baloney - especially the last line:

"TeX is a very powerful typesetting system used in many applications other than mathematics. The Editora graphical user interface written by D. Klutz^{[citation needed]}, using TeX as typesetting engine, offers a powerful pagination tool for Classified Ads Newspapers and Magazines^{[citation needed]}. Editora is used by the major Classified Ads Newspapers and Magazines in France^{[citation needed]}. The 12,000 pages landmark French dictionary Le Robert edition 2003 was typeset by TeX in less than 10 minutes^{[citation needed]}."

--72.193.56.159 (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eyewitness information

I don't want to write an article, but as a participant in some of the events cited in the typesetting article, I'd like to mention a few things.

On the history of photocomposition

Higonnet and Moyroud were the inventors of this, during WWII is my understanding. They were hiding out in Lyon, France, during a portion of the war and spent all that time working on their first prototype. Afterwards, they founded Lumitype in Paris and Photon in Cambridge, Mass. I knew them both in the 1960s and was familiar with various of their machines.

Computer typesetting was given its first serious impetous by Professor Griffith at MIT in the late 1950s and early 1960s. He worked with Higonnet and Moyroud to obtain from Photon a stripped down version of their Photon 540 machine to use with a computer. He was interested in enabling university professors to publish at a lower cost than was the case at that time. He created an elaborate typesetting language that I can't remember the name of right now for that purpose, designed to be used by the professors. Their texts would be processed on an IBM computer, maybe the 1620, I'm not sure and run on the 540. I think the markup language may have been called 'Typrint'.

While this was a serious and significant effort, it was in the main an experimental project. The first production typesetting program was written by myself and Dow Parkes for the Los Angeles Times newspaper in 1962. The Vice President of Production, Otis Booth, went to a seminar on computer typesetting at MIT in 1961, where the work of Professor Griffith was demonstrated and discussed. He came back to Los Angeles, sought bids from various computer manufacturers and bought an RCA 301 computer. I was sent out from New Jersey to do the program. It was done under great secrecy because Norman Chandler, the Publisher, was afraid of union and other agitation.

I did the programming and Dow Parkes worked out the logic of the hyphenation program, which was done by simple rules coded into logic tables.

This program went into production on December 12th, 1962. In January we got a great deal of media attention and had local and national TV news coverage, an article in Time Magazine, and cover stories in media publications, such as Quill. In the summer of 1963, RCA announced a newspaper typesetting system, called Newscom, which was a stripped down version of the RCA 301, with a version of my program that I produced under contract to RCA. Royirwingift (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typesetting and copyright?

Is typesetting covered by copyright? Somebody suggested this case could be relevant Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Palosirkka (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing

Dutch newsreel from 1977 about the transition to computer typesetting

I created an english caption file on commons for the dutch language video in the phototypesetting section (shown again right). As english is not my native language (dutch is) and it was already quite hard to squeeze in the text, which is spoken fairly rapidly, I think it would be a good idea if somebody has a look there for copy editing. This is the only place on the english wikipedia where this file is linked, so mentioning it here may generate some attention. Dutch captions are also present, for people who can read dutch but can't understand it when spoken. PiusImpavidus (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flong: positive or negative?

In the section "Manual typesetting" the third paragraph ends with this sentence: "In this process, called stereotyping, the entire forme is pressed into a fine matrix such as plaster of Paris or papier mâché called a flong to create a positive, from which the stereotype forme was cast of type metal." Is "...called a flong to create a positive..." correct, or should it read "...called a flong to create a negative...."? Wikifan2744 (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Positive" seems to be correct, assuming the sentence is referring to the stereotype form (the flong is the negative, the stereotype is the positive). The stereotype is cast from the flong, though, so the structure of this sentence still has some problems:

"In this process, called stereotyping, the entire form is pressed into a fine matrix [...] called a flong, to create a positive, from which the stereotype form was electrotyped, cast of type metal."
— current version

The way it is written does seem to imply both that the positive is created from the flong, and that the stereotype is then cast from the newly created positive: ie, original form [+ flong] -> positive -> stereotype, when the process is actually original form -> flong -> stereotype/positive.

There's a little ambiguity in the sentence regarding how the flong is made, as well. As written, it seems to suggest the flong exists independently of the original form, and pressing the form into the matrix is what creates the positive (rather than the flong). That's pretty obviously wrong.

A better phrasing for this might be:

"In this process, called stereotyping, the entire form is pressed into a fine matrix such as plaster of Paris or papier mâché to create a flong, from which a positive form is cast in type metal."

In addition to that, there are a few other problems with the text as it stands. Electrotyping is described as a process distinct from stereotyping, which is characterized by the use of flongs and metal casting, so its mention seems very out of place here; if mentioned at all, it might need its own sentence or paragraph in the section. 97.126.99.36 (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cathode-ray tube link (Digital era)

The first sentence of the Digital era section reads as follows:

"The next generation of phototypesetting machines to emerge were those that generated characters on a cathode ray tube."

Linking to Cathode ray tube without first specifying it as a type of monitor seems a little clumsy, and potentially confusing for readers unfamiliar with the term. It's a very technical page.

I propose one of the following changes:

Changing the link to History of display technology#Cathode ray tube
Taking out "cathode ray tube" entirely and replacing it with "computer monitor."
Changing the text to read: "The next generation of phototypesetting machines to emerge were those that generated characters on a cathode ray tube monitor."

This could also be linked as:
[[cathode ray tube]] [[Computer monitor|monitor]] ("...on a cathode ray tube monitor"), or as a single link to

[[Computer monitor#Cathode-ray tube|cathode ray tube monitor]] ("...on a cathode ray tube monitor").

If this is not technically correct (I'm not familiar with how magnetic tape would get rendered on an electronic display, or if this would count as a computer monitor), "display" might also work here without generating confusion.

I'm going to make a preliminary change just adding "display" to the sentence, but leave this up for discussion for those with more knowledge on the topic. 97.113.26.134 (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]