On 08/01/12 08:31:40, Peter Schaffter wrote: > > 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.
Is there an alternative method that is better/faster/cleaner than the use of complementary values for \s and \H? For example, \s'-100u'\H'+100u'The quick brown fox ...\H'0'\s0 will "shorten" the text by a "little" amount. But finding the smallest value that achieves the requisite effect (usually moving one word up or down a line) is a PITA. [100u -- 1/10 of a point -- was chosen for the nonce, I usually start with 250u] Also, this "Poor Man's Track-Kerning" is, of course, not strictly kosher because it affects the inter-word spacing as much as the inter-character spacing. What method do others use? Robert Thorsby To be or not to be. -- Shakespeare To do is to be. -- Nietzsche To be is to do. -- Sartre Do be do be do. -- Sinatra