Re: [Groff] RE: Short Orphan Lines

[Peter Schaffter]

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Izma <address@hidden>
Date: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:09 pm
Subject: [Groff] RE: Short Orphan Lines

> I think
> the ideal solution is feathering the leading of the page that's
> going to lose the line, but it's hard to implement (although
> Peter Schaffter tells me he's got that built into MOM -- I've got
> to look into that yet).

Steve's almost right on this, except that mom doesn't allow selective
feathering of patches of type in a document.  mom's "feathering" applies
to the overall base leading used throughout a document.  For example, in
document processing with mom, if 16 is given as the leading prior to the
START macro, mom will feather the leading to, say, 16152 groff "units"
(assuming PostScript units of 1/1000 of a point, that's just slightly
more than 16 points).  The macro, DOC_LEAD_ADJUST can be used to control
this.  In the situation of widow avoidance, better to adjust the leading
between spaced elements on a page (add or subtract a point or two before
heads, between paragraphs, etc.).  If that's not possible, then
"massaging" the text to add or get rid of a line is the right way to go.

> This fits into the important implication of Ted's comments: you
> need to look at the results of your typographic adjustments
> because, so far, none of the automatic processes are up to par
> with the human eye and sensibility.

I concur.  In fact, scattered throughout the mom documentation are quite
a few comments to the effect that nothing replaces the human eye and
human input when it comes to good typography.  The philosophy behind mom
is based largely on this.  Automate when automation is desireable, but
never leave the user without the tools to implement satisfactory
solutions to thorny typographic problems.

--
Peter Schaffter