how to export to odt with 11 or 10 pt fonts? Default font setting

how to export to odt with 11 or 10 pt fonts? Default font setting

[Uwe Brauer]

Hi

I searched about google, but it seems that the only way to have a 10 or
11 pt font size is, again, by using styles. Am I right?

Thanks

Uwe Brauer 

Re: how to export to odt with 11 or 10 pt fonts? Default font setting

[Eric S Fraga]

On Wednesday,  6 Oct 2021 at 17:18, Uwe Brauer wrote:
> I searched about google, but it seems that the only way to have a 10
> or 11 pt font size is, again, by using styles. Am I right?

Are you referring to the export of an org document?  If so, what target?
LaTeX has LaTeX_CLASS_OPTIONS in which you can set the size.

-- 
: Eric S Fraga via Emacs 28.0.60, Org release_9.5-63-g67b613
: Latest paper written in org: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.05096

Re: how to export to odt with 11 or 10 pt fonts? Default font setting

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 458 bytes --]

>>> "ESF" == Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> writes:

> On Wednesday,  6 Oct 2021 at 17:18, Uwe Brauer wrote:
>> I searched about google, but it seems that the only way to have a 10
>> or 11 pt font size is, again, by using styles. Am I right?

> Are you referring to the export of an org document?  If so, what target?
> LaTeX has LaTeX_CLASS_OPTIONS in which you can set the size.

Yes, as the subject states org-->odt. So it seems a style is the answer.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5673 bytes --]

Re: how to export to odt with 11 or 10 pt fonts? Default font setting

[Eric S Fraga]

On Thursday,  7 Oct 2021 at 14:27, Uwe Brauer wrote:
> Yes, as the subject states org-->odt. 

Ummm, yes, I guess subject lines should be read... sorry for the noise.
-- 
: Eric S Fraga via Emacs 28.0.60, Org release_9.5-63-g67b613
: Latest paper written in org: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.05096

Re: how to export to odt with 11 or 10 pt fonts? Default font setting

[Juan Manuel Macías]

Uwe Brauer writes:

> I searched about google, but it seems that the only way to have a 10 or
> 11 pt font size is, again, by using styles. Am I right?

Yes, you are right. Word processors handle paragraph and character
styles. Anything that is not styled is applied by direct formatting,
manually, which is often bad practice.

Fun fact: 11pt (for example) in libreoffice or M$ Word is not the same
as 11pt in LaTeX. The reason is that TeX uses by default the classic
point "pt", traditionally used in English-speaking countries. 12pt=1pc
(pica). Word processors and DTP programs like InDesign or QuarkXpress
use the postscript point, which is somewhat higher. In TeX the
postscript point is called 'big point' (bp). There is also the didot
point, which in TeX is called "dd" (12dd = 1 cicero). See:
https://github.com/tweh/tex-units

With the calc-units package you can easily convert between these TeX
units in Elisp. For instance:

(require 'calc-units)

(calc-eval (math-convert-units (calc-eval "11texpt" 'raw) (calc-eval
"texbp" 'raw)))

Best regards,

Juan Manuel 

Re: how to export to odt with 11 or 10 pt fonts? Default font setting

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1244 bytes --]

>>> "JMM" == Juan Manuel Macías <maciaschain@posteo.net> writes:

> Uwe Brauer writes:
>> I searched about google, but it seems that the only way to have a 10 or
>> 11 pt font size is, again, by using styles. Am I right?

> Yes, you are right. Word processors handle paragraph and character
> styles. Anything that is not styled is applied by direct formatting,
> manually, which is often bad practice.

> Fun fact: 11pt (for example) in libreoffice or M$ Word is not the same
> as 11pt in LaTeX. The reason is that TeX uses by default the classic
> point "pt", traditionally used in English-speaking countries. 12pt=1pc
> (pica). Word processors and DTP programs like InDesign or QuarkXpress
> use the postscript point, which is somewhat higher. In TeX the
> postscript point is called 'big point' (bp). There is also the didot
> point, which in TeX is called "dd" (12dd = 1 cicero). See:
> https://github.com/tweh/tex-units

> With the calc-units package you can easily convert between these TeX
> units in Elisp. For instance:

> (require 'calc-units)

> (calc-eval (math-convert-units (calc-eval "11texpt" 'raw) (calc-eval
> "texbp" 'raw)))

Thanks, but it seems 11TeXpt-->10.95

So it is not that different.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5673 bytes --]

Re: how to export to odt with 11 or 10 pt fonts? Default font setting

[Juan Manuel Macías]

Uwe Brauer writes:

> Thanks, but it seems 11TeXpt-->10.95
>
> So it is not that different.

In typography it's a significant difference. It's not dramatic, but it
can produce different results in a book using the same body text and the
same line spacing, same margins, page dims. etc. Also TeX uses more
decimals. It all depends on more factors, of course: the font or the
microtype properties of pdfTeX and LuaTeX, especially horizontal
scaling, which can also have a significant influence, when activated, on
the appearance of text and pagination.

In any case, what I said was nothing more than a fun typographic fact,
since most people think that there is only one type of point.

Best regards,

Juan Manuel 

Re: how to export to odt with 11 or 10 pt fonts? Default font setting

[Peter Neilson]

On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 08:28:03 -0400, Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> wrote:

>>>> "JMM" == Juan Manuel Macías <maciaschain@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> Uwe Brauer writes:
>>> I searched about google, but it seems that the only way to have a 10 or
>>> 11 pt font size is, again, by using styles. Am I right?
>
>> Yes, you are right. Word processors handle paragraph and character
>> styles. Anything that is not styled is applied by direct formatting,
>> manually, which is often bad practice.
>
>> Fun fact: 11pt (for example) in libreoffice or M$ Word is not the same
>> as 11pt in LaTeX. The reason is that TeX uses by default the classic
>> point "pt", traditionally used in English-speaking countries. 12pt=1pc
>> (pica). Word processors and DTP programs like InDesign or QuarkXpress
>> use the postscript point, which is somewhat higher. In TeX the
>> postscript point is called 'big point' (bp). There is also the didot
>> point, which in TeX is called "dd" (12dd = 1 cicero). See:
>> https://github.com/tweh/tex-units
>
>> With the calc-units package you can easily convert between these TeX
>> units in Elisp. For instance:
>
>> (require 'calc-units)
>
>> (calc-eval (math-convert-units (calc-eval "11texpt" 'raw) (calc-eval
>> "texbp" 'raw)))
>
> Thanks, but it seems 11TeXpt-->10.95
>
> So it is not that different.

Sometimes that kind of difference can cause minor sessions of  
tearing-out-the-hair, like when the expected pagination is off, with just  
one word hanging off into the wilderness of another separate page. Manual  
typesetting, back in the dark ages of hand-set lead type, or even  
Linotype, encountered those problems, too. What did the stymied typesetter  
do? He'd leave out words! Yes, really!! "This sentence no verb."

Re: how to export to odt with 11 or 10 pt fonts? Default font setting

[copropriete27ruemoret]

Unless you insist on using Computer Modern with a word processing
programm (yes, it can be done, at least with the OTF versions of these
fonts), or Times New Roman/Cambria with LaTeX (again possible thanks to
their OTF incarnation) and slaving to force LaTeX choices on Word (or
Word choices on LaTeX, much harder and probably abysmally stupid), your
resulting documents will vary for much larger reasons : floats
handling, table structures, layout structure, different ligatures,
different kernings, etc...

Add maths and bibliographic references to the mix, and your chances of
obtaining "the same result" are about those of a snowball in Sirius'
photosphere...

BTW: since most of what is typeset nowadays will be used as PDF, HTML
and/or epub (and paper-printed only for archival purposes), it is high
time to revisit typography funamentals (currently based on more than 5
centuries of use of the *physics* of the "paper" medium) to adapt them
to the physics of computer display and the physiology of human reading
of this new medium (which is *not* the same as "paper" reading).

This dautingly complex task has not yet attracted the attention of our
myriads of "communication specialists", who also carefully shun the
problem of retinking what should be the layout of a publication aimed
at electronic media and embalm the habits (such as justification,
pagination, foot- and end-notes, bibliographic references and entries,
indexes, etc...) born of 5 centuries of paper-printed, codex-bound 
publications...

HTH,

--
Emmanuel Charpentier

Re: how to export to odt with 11 or 10 pt fonts? Default font setting

[Juan Manuel Macías]

copropriete27ruemoret@gmail.com writes:

> Unless you insist on using Computer Modern with a word processing
> programm (yes, it can be done, at least with the OTF versions of these
> fonts), or Times New Roman/Cambria with LaTeX (again possible thanks to
> their OTF incarnation) and slaving to force LaTeX choices on Word (or
> Word choices on LaTeX, much harder and probably abysmally stupid), your
> resulting documents will vary for much larger reasons : floats
> handling, table structures, layout structure, different ligatures,
> different kernings, etc...

It is not enough to use the same font nor the same font technology
(otf). In my previous post I referred to microtypegraphical processes
that influence drastically the formal aspect, regardless of the font and
the 'glyph level', layout, and other macro typographycal elements. Word
processors do not have the TeX line breaking algorithm, for example, nor
the horizontal scaling and optical margin alignment properties that were
first implemented in pdfTeX (these properties are based on the theories
of Herman Zapf on the Gutenberg Bible and were implemented for the first
time in an experimental software older than TeX called hz-program). That
is why I always recommend that documents made in a word processor are
never fully justified: word processors *do not know how to justify*
(HTML also does not know how to do it) and the result is usually bad and
full of rivers. And there is the fact also that word processors work on
postscript points. As I said in the previous message, there are many
more factors, but these merely physical (and 'invisible') factors are
important.

Even software like Adobe InDesign, which implements the TeX algorithm
and the microtype properties of Zapf (in a rather sloppy way, since it
does so with generic values applied to the character and not to the
glyph) does not achieve the precision of TeX; therefore, there may be
variations.

In any case, I am talking about processes at the lowest level
(microtypographical). Generally speaking, word processors cannot imitate
TeX. But TeX can imitate word: just disable TeX algorithm (\sloppypar)
and use postscript points values. But, except as an experiment, it
doesn't make much sense...

> BTW: since most of what is typeset nowadays will be used as PDF, HTML
> and/or epub (and paper-printed only for archival purposes), it is high
> time to revisit typography funamentals (currently based on more than 5
> centuries of use of the *physics* of the "paper" medium) to adapt them
> to the physics of computer display and the physiology of human reading
> of this new medium (which is *not* the same as "paper" reading).

The PDF format has evolved a lot since the 90s, but it is still, in
essence, 'printed paper that you can see on screen', device independent.
Paradoxically, it was a revolution in printing, and it was of crucial
importance in the extinction of the old photomechanical printing
methods, which were complex and extremely expensive. As for the
relationship of typography with digital media, or new media, that is a
long topic. But, in any possible medium, I think that what Stanley
Morison (author of Times Roman) said will always prevail in good
typography:

#+begin_quote
Typography is the efficient means to an essentially
utilitarian and only accidentally aesthetic end, for the enjoyment of
patterns is rarely the reader’s chief aim. Therefore, any disposition of
printing material which, whatever the intention, has the effect of
coming between the author and the reader is wrong.
#+end_quote

Best regards,

Juan Manuel