At 06:23 PM 07/06/2004, Mark D Lew wrote: >> fonts, the space which comes with (i.e., above) the period combines >> with the word space which follows to give the appearance of being >> slightly wider than word space alone. This is the part of the non >> sequitur that is missing. > >Right, but the period accomplishes this in either kind of font, and, as >I'm sure you realize, it does so even more in a monospace font, since >the period character is relatively wider there.
Yes, but the period also comes with a fair amount of space to its left -- close to half a word space worth! This is the effect that double-spacing is supposed to overcome.
Frankly, I think the argument for double-spacing in monospaced fonts is not overly persuasive -- but it is *reasonable*. I've been flogging it here just to try show that even if one believes in double-spacing there, that same justification does not exist in proportionately spaced fonts.
>> But I think single-spacing in proportionately spaced fonts is an >> established rule. At least it is among typesetters and printers, and I >> think there's no reason for ordinary typists not to follow. > >But also no reason to jump on them and call them ignorant when they >don't.
Well, I don't think I did that -- at least not here. <g>
> You're right that it was the rule for typesetters. On the >machines I worked on (Compugraphic)
We had those for my high school paper, but I wasn't doing typography yet. My brother used them his freshman year, and then they bought a bunch of Macs.
>Typesetting per se doesn't even exist anymore, or only barely.
There's actually a groundswell of interest in letterpress these days. I printed my own wedding invitations a few years ago, survived a round of derision from my inlaws ("What do you mean, they're not engraved?"), and then had the pleasure of sending them a lengthy article from the NY Times to the effect that letterpress invitations are now really *in* among those in the know.
>There are a lot of things we routinely did in >typesetting that aren't done now. A few things aren't even possible. >Most are possible in the better programs but rarely are.
I'd be interested in hearing more about this, possibly off-list. I feel like Quark is about as close to manipulating actual type as you can get.
>The only thing I would add is that typesetting always taught >a single space after a period for ANY font, not just a proportionally >spaced one.
You'd have more experience with this, on a Compugraphic -- I don't think I've seen any monospaced letterpress fonts.
Aaron.
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
