🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SPQR.91Mar10171353@manutius.ecs.soton.ac.uk> spqr@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Sebastian Rahtz) writes:

> - go for PostScript pictures, even if it means scanning originals and
>   using the image. the usefulness of arbitrary scaling to fit the
>   right space is invaluable. dont even consider cut and paste unless
>   you have an assistant to do it

Yes, I should have been clearer about that---if you can get the
publishing house to do it, use cut&paste, you should try to get your
money's worth out of them...  But if you're having to do it yourself,
use some technical means.  Try to avoid scanning, as it usually
produces horribly digitized images which look like they've been faxed.
I notice the New Statesman (which should know better) has taken to
scanning images, and all the B&W linework has suffered dreadfully.
You can also spot the vectorization of the fonts, but that's another
matter.

If you do end up having to cut&paste, like all optical markup, leave
it to the last moment.  There's nothing more disheartening than than
pasting up a book only to discover some last-minute corrections which
mean you have to screw the whole thing up and stick it in the bin.

Agreeing with your agreements,

Alan.
Alan Jeffrey         Tel: +46 31 72 10 98         jeffrey@cs.chalmers.se
Department of Computer Sciences, Chalmers University, Gothenburg, Sweden