Hi. On Sat, Jan 07, 2012, Pierre-Jean wrote:
> Dave Kemper <[email protected]> wrote: > > In professionally typeset novels, when a page is shortened by > > one line to eliminate a widow on the following page, bottom-line > > alignment is handled in one of two ways (at least, in the novels > > where I've been able to figure out their trick): > > > > - the leading (aka line spacing) of the page is increased > > slightly, or > > - the facing page (whether preceding or following) is also > > shortened by one line. Weighing in on this issue, I have to say that in my thirty+ years of typesetting, never has changing the leading of continuous prose (aka running text) been considered acceptable. In fact, it's impossible for me to imagine a situation where it would even be useful. If the text is unbroken by headings, space between paragraphs, or other interpolations, adding or subtracting lines to fix orphans or widows may increase or decrease the amount of text on a page, but doesn't alter the number of lines that fit on it. In documents or books where running text does get interrupted, it has always been standard practice to balance the whitespace around the disrupting elements in order to achieve properly aligned bottom margins. Changing the leading of running text is a no-no. > That means that the vertical unit of a page is the line spacing, > and if, for example, you add space before and after titles, you > should take care that the width of the title plus the extra > spaces is proportionnal to an amount of lines. Precisely. By the way, did you mean the "depth of the title" (not "width")? I'm assuming so. I included in the mom macros a utility, .SHIM, which ensures that the line of output text immediately following .SHIM lands squarely on the next available valid baseline. A valid baseline is one on which running text would normally fall, assuming an uninterrupted page of text. It's a simple way of taking care that "...the depth of the title plus the extra spaces is proportionnal to an amount of lines." .SHIM gets used behind-the-scenes to balance the whitespace around document titles, heads, subheads, sub-subheads, cited material, etc., but it can be invoked manually at any time. > So, dealing with orphans by changing the line spacing, is just > a "no other choice" solution. You should prefer dealing with > interword and interletter spaces. Correct. The shortening or lengthening of paragraphs to avoid widows and orphans requires the skillful manipulation of letter- and word-spacing on a line-by-line basis, not an overall change of leading that merely expands or contracts the depth of the text. Would that the process could be automated, but I have yet to be shown that it can. Typography is still, after all these years, an art that requires a good eye, a deft hand, and human judgment. -- Peter Schaffter Author of The Binbrook Caucus http://www.schaffter.ca
