spacing after punctuation

As a follow-up to our earlier discussion of one versus two spaces
following a full point/full stop/period, I offer the following passage
from /About Face: Reviving the Rules of Typography/ by David Jury
(typos mine):

[begin quotation, page 92]
<bold>Space between words</bold>
The sole reason for spaces between words is to help the reader to
recognise individual word shapes. The space should be the minimum to
fulfil this task, commonly stated as the width of an
<italic>i</italic>.

Close, consistent word spacing will make it easier for the eye to
smoothly skip along a line of text with minimum pauses. Visually, a
page of text should appear as an orderly series of thin, horizontal,
evenly textured lines, separated by channels of clear space. If the
setting is loose, there is a tendency for the texture of these lines
to appear uneven, fractured, and, in the worst cases, broken.
Persistent use of over-large word spaces (particularly if these become
wider than the interline spaces) can align with spaces in other lines
to create white, vertical 'rivers' through the text. Comprehension
will certainly be impaired if the type cannot keep the reader's eye on
the line, and a tightly spaced line will greatly help. There should be
a sharp contrast between the line of text and the interline spaces,
allowing each to provide strength and support to the other.

Similarly, space before and after uppercase characters can be reduced,
and, if required, the same applies to parentheses and brackets. The
shape of some lowercase characters, such as the v, w and y, also offer
the opportunity to reduce word spacing where they begin or end a word.
The size of the x-height also influences the amount of word space
required. The larger the x-height the larger the counters. This means
that the spaces separating words also need to be larger to ensure the
word shapes are clearly defined.

Every effort needs to be made to maintain consistency, especially in
demanding circumstances; for example, where punctuation occurs, or
where a roman text includes italics or involves a large number of
people's names with initials or clusters of numerals; all of these
need to be dealt with in such a way that they blend, inconspicuously,
into the page of text.

<italic>Punctuation</italic>
Word spaces, preceding or following punctuation, should be optically
adjusted to appear to be of the same value as a standard word space.

If a standard word space is inserted after a full point or a comma
then, optically, this produces a space up to 50% wider than that of
other word spaces within a line of type. This is because these
punctuation marks carry space <italic>above</italic> them, which, when
added to the adjacent standard word spaces, combines to create a
visually larger space. Some argue that the 'additional' space after a
comma and full point serves as a 'pause signal' for the reader. But
this is unnecessary (and visually disruptive) since the pause signal
is provided by the punctuation mark itself.

The word space should be reduced to take account of the space above
the comma or full point. The aim must be to provide an overall space
which is the optical equivalent of a standard word space. Spaces
between words, regardless of punctuation, should maintain an even
<italic>optical</italic> value equivalent to that of a standard word
space.

Similarly, quote marks (turned comma and apostrophe, singly or paired)
carry space <italic>beneath</italic> them. Consequently, spaces before
the turned comma and after the apostrophe should be reduced to the
optical equivalent of a standard word space. Single rather than double
quotes will make it easier to maintain constant optical word spaces.

The colon and semi-colon, and also parenthesis will benefit from a
reduction in the word spaces immediately adjacent to them. Question
and exclamation marks, generally, do not require an adjustment to the
following word space.
[end quotation]

Jury's book should fascinate anyone interested in typography.

As a follow-up to our earlier discussion of one versus two spaces
following a full point/full stop/period, I offer the following passage
from /About Face: Reviving the Rules of Typography/ by David Jury
(typos mine):

Entire text snipped--go read the first post.

Jury's book should fascinate anyone interested in typography.

I thought this was a very interesting analysis. I don't know of any
word processor for the computer that can do this. Perhaps one or more
of the desktop publishers can do it. There's a list of them here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_desktop_publishing_software

Probably Adobe's is the most well known--and quite expensive. It would
be interesting to see what the freebies will do!

--doug

Adobe's certainly is quite expensive — and for that kind of money, I
would hope it could do everything described in the book! :slight_smile:

Am I reading this right? Is Jury suggesting that space after periods actually be *less* than a standard word space? If so, that is diametrically opposed to the typewriter standard of adding two spaces after sentence ending punctuation.

Virgil

That is the way it reads to me,

From: T. R. Valentine
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 11:23 AM
To: LibreOffice-list
Subject: [libreoffice-users] spacing after punctuation

As a follow-up to our earlier discussion of one versus two spaces
following a full point/full stop/period, I offer the following passage
from /About Face: Reviving the Rules of Typography/ by David Jury
(typos mine):

The book most often relied on by professional typesetters (for English)
is Robert Bringhurst:

http://tinyurl.com/laus5fb

The two most capable programs for typesetting are TeX and Adobe
InDesign. For professional line endings and to avoid rivers Adobe
copied the multiline paragraph composition engine from TeX. TeX is free
and open source, so it was easy to do. I wish LibreOffice could do the
same.

However, Adobe added 'optical character kerning' to InDesign, a feature
not found in any other software. Optical character kerning works by
disregarding the metrics built into the font, including the kerning
pairs. Instead, it calculates the square area between each letter,
taking into account the curves and shapes of the letters, then spaces
the letters with equal area.

<snip>

<sigh> With the different ways people reply to this group, this discussion is all over the place when using gmane and a newsreader. :frowning:

I think I've got all of these messages read, and it seems to me everyone has overlooked one thing, the font itself. What did the designer do with the individual characters and punctuation marks and whatever else may be in the font regarding white space in the glyph itself?

It seems logical to me that's going to make a difference in whether the spacing after a period, for example, should be 1, 1.5, or 2 spaces. And maybe, you'll just have to do some manual kerning.

Or... Am I missing something?

Ken,

I don't think you're missing anything, but most of us aren't using LO to prepare the *final* version of a document for professional publication (i.e., books, magazines, etc.). I would truly hope that a publishing house would do more than just take a word processing document and print it out in book format. (In fact, many professional writers use nothing more than Notepad, saying their publishers strip all user-inserted formatting anyway). So, if there's any manual kerning to be done, I would expect that to be done on a level far above LO.

When I argue for one space instead of two, I'm thinking in terms of business letters, memos, legal briefs (I'm a lawyer) or scholastic papers (I also teach at our local university). These are the types of documents I prepare with LO, and when preparing them, I want to follow professional typographic standards as much as I can. Ergo, one space. But, manual kerning goes beyond what I think should be expected of anyone on this level of document preparation.

Virgil

Virgil,

I understand wanting to follow "best shop practices" for printing. Which is why I'm just starting out on giving LyX a run for some things I want to write.

But, even being that anal (LOL), it doesn't answer my questions about the design of the font itself, and the effect of the design, regardless of who does the final setup of the document.

I kinda stayed out of the one space or two discussion, but if you look at this post, which has both your style (one space) and mine (two spaces), when it's a monospace font as I see this post I find the single space more difficult to read. Not terribly, but harder. :slight_smile: If if the font is proportional, I generally stumble at the beginning when reading a document of some kind that has single spaces at the end of the sentence until the brain adjusts. Too often, my brain interprets a single spacing at the end of a sentence as just one long, very long, run on sentence. :slight_smile:

When I get the time, and have a reason to use LO again, I'm going to go into the autocorrect function and see if I can follow my own suggestion in another thread about substitution of a different space when the right punctuation/space combinations are typed, following my ingrained habits. LOL

Kind of an off topic questions, but don't a lot of legal papers use full justification?

I know of several publishers who work directly from ODF files. With a couple
of exceptions, Writer has most of the tools needed for a thoroughly
professional design job, allegedly because when the original code was being
written in the days of Star Division, they were told they would have to use
what they wrote for documentation.

The trick is to know what options to use, and which to ignore (topics that, if
you forgive the shameless plug, I am currently grappling with the book I am
writing with Jean Hollis Weber).

For now, I'll just say that Writer is not a word processor so much as an
intermediate desktop publishing program. You can actually substitute it very
successfully for proprietary tools like FrameMaker.

On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 20:18:34 -0700
Bruce Byfield <bbyfield@axion.net> dijo:

For now, I'll just say that Writer is not a word processor so much as
an intermediate desktop publishing program. You can actually
substitute it very successfully for proprietary tools like FrameMaker.

That is correct, but bear in mind that FrameMaker, like Writer or TeX,
is not a page layout application like Scribus, InDesign, QuarkXPress or
PageMaker, inter alia.

Ken,

I'm about as anal as they come when it comes to fonts, and I've never really noticed much difference among the ones I use when it comes to white space around punctuation. I'll have to give them a closer look.

As to legal papers, many lawyers do use full justification in their legal briefs, but I never do. I don't know of any court rules that actually require full justification in court papers, so it is usually a matter of personal taste. I've always lived by the "rule" that justification looks more professional on first glance, but left aligned text increases comprehension. Usually, justified text is generated by adding extra white space in between words, resulting in inconsistent word spacing from line to line. Sometimes it will result in distracting rivers of white space down the page. And, when justification widens word spacing, it only exacerbates the width of two spaces between sentences.

LyX is a great program and it produces excellent results, especially with fonts having expert features such as old style numbering and true small caps. I've often used it myself, but I've found it works best when one accepts the LyX/LaTeX default settings. Changing the defaults can be somewhat challenging. Despite what I said above about justification, LyX/LaTeX does it extremely well, especially if you use the Microtype package. It makes microscopic adjustments not only between words, but *within* letters themselves to keep word spacing relatively consistent while reducing the need for hyphenated line endings. The result is stunning.

But, for normal business or legal work, I find LyX much too cumbersome for my needs. I much prefer LO in this setting.

Virgil

Bruce Byfield wrote:

I know of several publishers who work directly from ODF files. With a couple
of exceptions, Writer has most of the tools needed for a thoroughly
professional design job, allegedly because when the original code was being
written in the days of Star Division, they were told they would have to use
what they wrote for documentation.

The trick is to know what options to use, and which to ignore (topics that, if
you forgive the shameless plug, I am currently grappling with the book I am
writing with Jean Hollis Weber).

For now, I'll just say that Writer is not a word processor so much as an
intermediate desktop publishing program. You can actually substitute it very
successfully for proprietary tools like FrameMaker.

No doubt, many publishers are simply publishing the files sent to them that are created by word processors. And, sadly, the results are often quite apparent. I'm reading more and more books that are set without true small caps or old style numbering. Writers and publishers simply accept the faux small caps generated by their word processors by shrinking regular upper case letters complete with the corresponding weakening of the lines that come from the shrinking. Now, perhaps these are the options that you and Weber would recommend avoiding. (I look forward to hearing more about your book.)

However, for me at least, LO's biggest limitation that disqualifies it for final publishable work is its justification method. It's line-by-line justification results in too many word space variations from line to line and too many hyphenated lines. As an experiment, just prepare the same document using LO and LaTeX (with the Microtype package). The difference in the justified lines will be quite obvious.

To me, LO Writer is a business class word processor, and perhaps the best there is, but until it finds a more complete justification method, I don't think I qualifies for creating publishable output.

Virgil

Hi :slight_smile:
+1 
On the rare occasion i have glanced through newspapers in the last few years i have noticed really bad kerning between words on different lines.  I doubt LaTeX is really perfect either although it probably is a shed load better than Writer/Word.  Getting the spacing right between words on different lines without leaving the end all raggedy takes craftsmanship (craftswomanship) and is more of an art than a science.  Computers will never really understand the way human beans see things.  They can only approximate.  ("If only you could see what your eyes have seen" Bladerunner replicant to the chap that manufactured his eyeballs)

The people who compare Writer to LaTeX seldom mention how well Word compares.  People reading some of these posts, or quoting them in articles, might be under a false impression.  The very fact that people are annoyed that Writer is not a perfect Desktop Publishing shows how much closer it is than Word.  Word makes a complete mess of documents.  If you tried listing the various nasty messes Word makes in an average document then it could take a looong time.  That's why they have Publisher.

Having used Publisher a fair bit, and Word and now Writer but not LaTeX i think output quality starts with Word as being the worst on the left
Word ................. Publisher .... Writer ................... LaTeX
although maybe the gap between LaTeX and Writer is even closer than that?  There might be some things Publisher does better and maybe i have only ever seen it being mis-handled but so far everything i have seen produced by people experienced (but not necessarily good with it) with Publisher has been done a lot better by a noob with Writer.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

FrameMaker is (or used to be) an industry-standard for producing printed
material, such as technical manuals. It's a specialized tool, designed to
produce text-oriented documents.

No doubt, many publishers are simply publishing the files sent to them that
are created by word processors.

L
No, they're not, actually. You don't find publishers using MS Word files,
which are simply not up to the job.

I'm reading more and more books that are set without true small
caps or old style numbering. Writers and publishers simply accept the faux
small caps generated by their word processors by shrinking regular upper
case letters complete with the corresponding weakening of the lines that
come from the shrinking.

I think the avoidance of true small caps and old style numbering has more to
do with the practice of font creators, most of whom omit these features.

However, for me at least, LO's biggest limitation that disqualifies it for
final publishable work is its justification method. It's line-by-line
justification results in too many word space variations from line to line
and too many hyphenated lines. As an experiment, just prepare the same
document using LO and LaTeX (with the Microtype package). The difference in
the justified lines will be quite obvious.

Any on-the-fly justification is going to be rough. Do you run Tools > Language

Hyphenation when doing finishing a document? I find that does a lot to

improve any alignment, even ragged right.

On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 10:55:55 -0700
Bruce Byfield <bbyfield@axion.net> dijo:

On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 20:18:34 -0700

Bruce Byfield <bbyfield@axion.net> dijo:
>For now, I'll just say that Writer is not a word processor so much
>as an intermediate desktop publishing program. You can actually
>substitute it very successfully for proprietary tools like
>FrameMaker.

That is correct, but bear in mind that FrameMaker, like Writer or
TeX, is not a page layout application like Scribus, InDesign,
QuarkXPress or PageMaker, inter alia.

FrameMaker is (or used to be) an industry-standard for producing
printed material, such as technical manuals. It's a specialized tool,
designed to produce text-oriented documents.

Again, you are correct, but missed the point I was trying to make.
Perhaps I should state it more clearly.

In Writer, FrameMaker and the TeX family, a document consists of a
continuous stream of text. If you insert additional text at the
beginning, all the text moves down, including the creation of new pages
at the end if necessary.

The other applications I mentioned are "page layout" applications. In a
page layout application each page is a container. Everything that goes
on a page goes into a graphics or a text frame. The frames never
automatically move, regardless of how much stuff you add stuff to them.
For text to flow from one page to the next there must be successive
frames on the pages and the frames must be linked. You can drag frames
around, create new ones, change the size and shape, but a frame always
stays precisely where you put it on a page. You can link text frames
that are pages apart - think of a magazine where a story begins toward
the front of the magazine, runs for a couple of pages, and then you see
"continued on page x."

If you're doing a document that is essentially just text - a novel,
dissertation, academic paper, etc. - then the continuous text type of
application will probably work best. If you're doing something that is
design intensive - a newsletter, brochure, flier, advertising piece -
then the page layout application will make life much easier.

The two kinds of applications have fundamentally different approaches,
and that is the point I was trying to make.

And I should add that FrameMaker, of all the applications mentioned is,
in some respects, kind of a hybrid.

Writer won't do everything, but you appear not to realise what it can do. Writer has frames, which can indeed be anchored to pages, and have the sort of properties you describe. It also allows linked frames. The only restriction appears to be that linked frames must be in the same section. Try it! (See "frames;linking" in the help text.)

Brian Barker

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 09:36:29 +0100
Brian Barker <b.m.barker@btinternet.com> dijo:

Writer won't do everything, but you appear not to realise what it can
do. Writer has frames, which can indeed be anchored to pages, and
have the sort of properties you describe. It also allows linked
frames. The only restriction appears to be that linked frames must
be in the same section. Try it! (See "frames;linking" in the help
text.)

Of course I was aware that Writer has frames that can be linked. Do you
use writer to lay out a magazine? Do you recommend that I do so?

Of course I was aware that Writer has frames that can be linked.

How strange, then, that you should suggest otherwise in your message! (None of us can read your mind, of course.)

Do you use writer to lay out a magazine? Do you recommend that I do so?

Wow! Did you read either of those claims in my message? Or are you hoping no-one would notice your straw man?

Brian Barker