|
|
|
|
|
|
by venice_benice
804 days ago
|
|
|
I disagree. The spacing of the stylized TeX/LaTeX logo is very sensitive to the font used (especially the LA pair); most LaTeX users already don't adjust it when they use a font other than Computer Modern. Even when they can see the A halfway on top of the L, they don't change the spacing. But with PDF you at least have the knowledge that the font will be the same no matter who sees it. Webpages have no such guarantees (and indeed some people disable web fonts completely for whatever reasons) and it will only end up looking ugly as hell. On the web, the typographer's instructions are more of a suggestion, and we should lean into a more declarative style of layout, instead of trying to hack up something resembling precise position that will end up looking completely out of place anyways. I say this remembering in horror the many websites where people wanted the staggered look, and ended up producing a monstrocity. |
|
|
I'm not sure with which part you disagree. If the sentence:
> And, if you're going to refer to the typographic capabilities of TeX (or to LaTeX), it's a shame not to try to reproduce the distinctive styling of the word that Knuth says proudly in the TeXbook shows off precisely those typographic capabilities.
… then, you're right, I overstated it by saying that you should try to reproduce the logo when just referring to the typographic capabilities of TeX. But I still think that, if you wish to write a post about how to make web pages look more like compiled (La)TeX documents, then it is a shame not even to try to reproduce the distinctive typographic marker in the name of the language itself. Of course there's space for disagreement even with that more mild claim—but can we at least agree that the solution implemented, that visually sets off the word "LaTeX" but in no way that resembles how it ideally should be styled, is worse than just leaving the word alone?