[HN Gopher] Building the new hypermedia systems
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Building the new hypermedia systems
        
       Author : mpweiher
       Score  : 126 points
       Date   : 2024-07-19 13:49 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (dz4k.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (dz4k.com)
        
       | egypturnash wrote:
       | _Traditional style and my own preference dictate that
       | indentations separate paragraphs, so the first paragraph after a
       | non-paragraph element (like a heading or a list) should not be
       | indented. This is a common typographic convention, but to do it
       | in CSS is impossible in the general case without dozens, maybe
       | hundreds of selectors to handle every special case. In Typst, you
       | just give paragraphs a first-line-indent, and they know when to
       | use it._
       | 
       | p+p {text-indent:5em} seems pretty simple? I just did a quick
       | test and it seemed to work when I broke up a few paragraphs with
       | an h1, a ul, and a div. This isn't anything esoteric, it's CSS2
       | stuff that's been working for twenty years. Though "typst breaks
       | lines 500% better than most browsers" is a compelling argument on
       | its own.
        
         | strogonoff wrote:
         | There's both very little and a lot that can't be done in CSS
         | when it comes to proper typesetting.
         | 
         | p + p { text-indent } absolutely works and has been my go-to
         | method of implementing proper paragraph indentation for as long
         | as I can remember. Impressive drop caps, hanging punctuation,
         | etc. are possible with some effort.
         | 
         | However, balancing lines, hyphenation, eliminating rivers is
         | something that browsers don't do or do not as well, and custom
         | kerning is painful.
         | 
         | If there is something that handles typesetting on par with
         | InDesign but without the bloat and in a friendlier format,
         | that'd be neat, but I wonder how long would it remain bloat-
         | free considering features that would be needed.
        
           | glompers wrote:
           | What about the non-cloud version of InDesign (CS2, maybe
           | CS3?) that Adobe made free for download around 2013-2014?
           | This timing was related to the Adobe Creative Cloud being
           | released in 2013, eleven years ago this week. While I believe
           | others at Adobe later backtracked and decided that the
           | noncloud suite was no longer free _and never had been_, that
           | has been discussed on HN elsewhere.
        
       | recursivedoubts wrote:
       | Deniz did absolutely amazing work re-laying out the entire book
       | using typst:
       | 
       | https://typst.app/
       | 
       | And the results have been fantastic when compared with the
       | asciidoc version we created initially. The repo is here if you
       | want to see how he uses it:
       | 
       | https://github.com/bigskysoftware/hypermedia-systems-book
       | 
       | You can fork it and build either a pdf or epub using the just
       | commands: `just build-pdf` and `just build-epub`. I also uploaded
       | the epub to libgen.
       | 
       | We also had a pixel artist do a new cover for the paper back
       | version:
       | 
       | https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GSsMjBra4AAOQZ_?format=jpg&name=...
        
         | ta988 wrote:
         | that cover is great!
        
           | recursivedoubts wrote:
           | Thank you, I'm extremely happy with how it turned out, it was
           | done by the pixel artist ash on fiverr, highly recommended:
           | 
           | https://www.fiverr.com/ae1996
        
         | jiehong wrote:
         | It does look sweet! I can see that taking over latex.
         | 
         | Someday, I hope scientific journals can all agree on a standard
         | for mobile display of articles. Maybe something like a Typst
         | template for it. But it probably wouldn't be a PDF file.
        
       | tomjen3 wrote:
       | Sometime ago I brought Affinity publisher (I have no affiliation
       | with them, I got it because it did not require a subscription).
       | It is a desktop publishing application, so the intended use case
       | is that you make the text separately and then you setup a layout
       | and include the text.
       | 
       | And honestly, I think that is the better way to go. You don't
       | have to chase down weird commands (how do you set LaTeX to use
       | Lato as the main font again?) and you get instant feedback on how
       | things look.
       | 
       | I haven't found a way to mark text up as "this is a blockquote"
       | and then have that mapped to the correct style, and it seems to
       | lack a few of the more esoteric font features LaTeX does support.
       | The fact that you get instant feedback and can tweak the relevant
       | knobs as much as you like? That means you get a much nicer
       | layout.
       | 
       | If you have a Windows machine with the Office package, you get
       | Microsoft Publisher, which I believe can import Word documents
       | and extract the style from that.
       | 
       | Scribus can map styles from imported files, but last time I
       | checked I couldn't get it to auto update the view when you
       | changed the font.
        
         | constantcrying wrote:
         | >Affinity publisher
         | 
         | Doesn't even have real math support. Can it even be scripted?
         | 
         | Ridiculous alternative to Typst or LaTeX, they don't even
         | compete in the same category.
        
       | owenpalmer wrote:
       | Typst is truly a joy to use. Intuitive syntax, instant
       | compilation, trivial installation, and it's open source.
       | 
       | The only reason to learn Latex is the same reason to learn C++:
       | Everyone else uses it
        
       | kkfx wrote:
       | Hem... We already have org-mode...
        
       | lejalv wrote:
       | You can have all that and more with TeXmacs (http://texmacs.org)
       | and actually enjoy the writing as much as you hope for the reader
       | to enjoy a properly typeset document instead of a fixed width
       | font, and abstruse markup everywhere.
       | 
       | Typst is a better 70s answer for a 70s-level ambition, which is a
       | fine level of ambition when you're just out of punch-card
       | programming.
        
         | frabert wrote:
         | Typst typesets proportional width fonts just fine...?
        
           | globular-toast wrote:
           | The commenter is referring to the editing experience, not the
           | rendered output. Most people edit stuff like typst and
           | (La)TeX in a code editor with a fixed-width font.
           | 
           | Emacs supports variable-width fonts just fine and in theory
           | you could use variable width for the "content" and reserve
           | fixed width for the code. Not sure how well it works in
           | practice, though. Of course, that doesn't go as far as
           | TeXmacs.
        
           | lejalv wrote:
           | Typst is a 2-pane editing experience. What you edit is ugly,
           | even if less ugly than LaTeX or (gasp!) XML.
           | 
           | TeXmacs is an interactive typesetter. It typesets as you go.
           | You can mark chunks of content up (semantically or visually
           | or both) the way you do with any other batch-based
           | typesetter, but you don't need to suffer the markup when you
           | look up at the matrix, integral or set-theory equation you
           | wrote on the paragraph above.
           | 
           | Most of the comments just misunderstand TeXmacs. I
           | wholeheartedly recommend to watch the quick tour video
           | (3m40s): https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/videos.en.html
        
             | amelius wrote:
             | Yeah, what people miss is that for everything you write you
             | will read it at least 10 times. Why go through the
             | unnecessary pain of reading the markup yourself?
        
               | eddd-ddde wrote:
               | Because it's easier to edit markup by reading markup???
               | 
               | I don't want to edit a rendered document. I already have
               | MS Word if I wanted to do that.
        
             | tannhaeuser wrote:
             | > _(gasp!) XML_
             | 
             | I must be missing context here but I thought we were past
             | side snarks out of mere generational antagonism. If not,
             | please enlighten me ;)
             | 
             | Anyway, comparing XML against a compact syntax a la
             | markdown or typst (AIU!) is besides the point: XML is just
             | meant as canonical SGML syntax for delivery to browsers
             | while full SGML has all the additional features for
             | editing, such as short references (custom Wiki syntax token
             | mappings for eg markdown support), tag inference, and LPDs
             | (restricted element and attribute transformations), that
             | together deliver quite powerful authoring and content app
             | capabilities without turning into a full-featured
             | programming language. HTML, without doubt the most
             | important markup language, is based on it after all though
             | the vast customization features of SGML really favors
             | building your own project-specific Wiki syntax that's then
             | mapped to a rendering vocabulary such as HTML).
        
               | samatman wrote:
               | > _I must be missing context here but I thought we were
               | past side snarks out of mere generational antagonism. If
               | not, please enlighten me ;)_
               | 
               | The context is right there in the rest of the comment:
               | _editing_ XML by hand is a hideous experience.
               | 
               | It also has its problems as a format for data exchange,
               | but those are much less acute.
        
         | constantcrying wrote:
         | >TeXmacs
         | 
         | Never had a worse experience with TeX.
         | 
         | >instead of a fixed width font, and abstruse markup everywhere.
         | 
         | What?
        
           | lejalv wrote:
           | The TeXmacs webpage does not do a great job of undoing the
           | main confusion around it: TeXmacs is neither (La)TeX-based
           | (it has its own typesetter), nor it has much to do with
           | Emacs. Except perhaps that it is enormously configurable with
           | a Lisp-based language, Guile Scheme.
           | 
           | You could say: the rendered output (interactively or as PDF
           | export) looks as good if not better than if it was done with
           | (La)TeX, and the editor can be customized to a degree similar
           | (perhaps a little less?) than Emacs. Hence the name.
           | 
           | Incidentally, being able to customize Emacs with a Lisp other
           | than emacs-lisp, is something the Emacs community would
           | probably like, and there were in fact (now stalled) efforts
           | to do so with Scheme.
        
             | constantcrying wrote:
             | It still was a terrible experience, no idea why you
             | wouldn't use LaTeX or Typst over this, even Word felt
             | better.
        
               | lejalv wrote:
               | Can you explain what exactly was bad about the
               | experience?
        
               | constantcrying wrote:
               | It just felt like Word, but without any polish.
               | 
               | The best part of TeX always was that you only had to deal
               | with text. Trying to write something like TeX, but being
               | forced into a Word like graphical environment felt easily
               | to be the worst of both worlds.
        
       | jampekka wrote:
       | Typst seems like a real contender for LaTeX. I've used and hated
       | LaTeX for over 20 years. That the horror that is LaTeX is still
       | the least worst typesetting system for print is really
       | depressing.
       | 
       | I've been waiting for Typst to get HTML output. It's been under
       | development for quite a while but seems to suffer from some
       | bikeshedding [1].
       | 
       | Glad to see there's Pandoc support for Typst HTML (and LaTeX)
       | export as a workaround. Gotta try it for my next paper!
        
         | laurmaedje wrote:
         | Hey, Typst dev here. Regarding HTML export: It's not
         | bikeshedding. It's more that, while we consider HTML as pretty
         | important, we decided that fixing and improving the layout
         | engine first was even more important. Basically getting what we
         | have already right before starting to do more stuff.
         | 
         | That said, our plans for HTML export have definitely become
         | more substantiated and concrete over the past year and once the
         | current work on layout finishes, it is the next big thing on
         | our list.
        
           | jampekka wrote:
           | Thanks for the info and the good work!
           | 
           | My bikeshedding fear came from the Github issue (forgot the
           | link in the comment), where there is IMHO definite
           | bikeshedding about e.g. tag names. But indeed, there seems to
           | be important architectural concerns.
           | 
           | Following with interest how Typist develops.
           | 
           | https://github.com/typst/typst/issues/721
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-07-20 23:16 UTC)