Timeline for Setting a document in MS Word-12pt (12bp)
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://tex.stackexchange.com/ with https://tex.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 12, 2012 at 15:34 | history | edited | doncherry | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 613 characters in body
|
| Dec 8, 2011 at 14:01 | vote | accept | doncherry | ||
| Nov 8, 2011 at 8:43 | answer | added | Schweinebacke | timeline score: 15 | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 2:54 | answer | added | Werner♦ | timeline score: 18 | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 0:23 | comment | added | Count Zero |
Plain TeX has a command \magnification, which was disabled in LaTeX. The magnification produced this way is not really a 'typographically correct' resizing of the font, but for such subtle differences, it should do a perfect job. Other than that, I think nobody would guess it is not a 12bp font, unless an actual 12bp font is placed next to it. (This may happen in documents where some pages are typeset with LaTeX and others in MS Word... but then again, probably other features/elemets will differ much more spectacularly.) :)
|
|
| Nov 8, 2011 at 0:00 | comment | added | Alan Munn | A related question is this one: Globally redefining 1 pt to 1/72 in (PostScript point) and other similar changes. | |
| Nov 7, 2011 at 22:21 | comment | added | doncherry |
@Werner: And there's no way of redefining pt directly? Then I guess if one of you guys wants to, you could write up an answer with our gathered findings.
|
|
| Nov 7, 2011 at 22:16 | comment | added | Werner♦ |
@doncherry: In agreeance with @ egreg, a definition like \p@=1bp relies on anything other than the document class to use \p@ rather than pt. Even ltplain specifies the use of \p@ as an "abbreviation" for 1pt (or more specifically, "this saves macro space and time"). Perhaps it's enough to assume that the cases where some other package uses pt instead of p@ is negligible.
|
|
| Nov 7, 2011 at 22:01 | comment | added | doncherry |
@egreg: I had thought of these slightly off sizes as well, yes; my question remains mainly hypothetical. In the end, all the interesting (relative) definitions can be found in size12.clo, right? If a dimension isn't altered because of the 12pt option, it won't need altering if we use bp instead of pt. I looked into that file but I don't understand all of it.
|
|
| Nov 7, 2011 at 21:50 | comment | added | egreg |
LaTeX tries hard to define things in terms of multiples of \p@ and not of pt. But one never knows. Remember, on the contrary, that 17 point size is, for LaTeX, 17.28. I wouldn't worry at all.
|
|
| Nov 7, 2011 at 21:44 | comment | added | doncherry |
@egreg: I agree that the difference is negligible. So you're saying there are other dimensions not expressed in terms of \p@ but chosen relative to 12pt that would "get out of relation" (on a negligible scale as well) if we redefined \p@ only?
|
|
| Nov 7, 2011 at 21:35 | answer | added | Amy | timeline score: 5 | |
| Nov 7, 2011 at 21:32 | comment | added | egreg |
@Werner That might work, but not all lengths are expressed in terms of \p@. What I was saying is that it's almost impossible that somebody can spot the difference between 12pt and 12bp size. Particularly if they require MS Word documents. :)
|
|
| Nov 7, 2011 at 21:26 | comment | added | doncherry |
@Werner: That's about what I did, I used \setlength{\p@}{1bp}. It does end up in a few different hyphenations, but it'd be a coincidence if they added up to an extra line or the like.
|
|
| Nov 7, 2011 at 21:23 | comment | added | Werner♦ |
@egreg: Are you referring to \makeatletter \p@=1bp \makeatother in the document preamble?
|
|
| Nov 7, 2011 at 21:19 | comment | added | egreg |
No, it's not possible to tell LaTeX to use bp instead of pt. But I don't think the difference can be appreciated by the naked eye. An "A" at 12pt is 8.13588pt high, while it is 8.1664pt at 12bp. The difference is 0.01 millimeters.
|
|
| Nov 7, 2011 at 21:06 | comment | added | doncherry |
@Werner: I assume the way I worded my question, it is. If there were strict requirements regarding the font sizes of section titles, block quotes etc., I could just always use bp. What I actually had in mind (i.e. how I solved it) is telling LaTeX to always use Word's point instead of its own.
|
|
| Nov 7, 2011 at 20:58 | comment | added | doncherry | @CountZero: Not that using Latin Modern (or any particular font instead of Times New "old 'n' boring" Roman) and TeX's hyphenation wouldn't make a bigger difference than the font sizes ... It's more a theoretical question. I've actually come up with an answer already, I'm just curious if the pros here would do the same; I'll add it in a couple days if it hasn't appeared yet. Plus this whole thing might be helpful if someone's really doing a "Use LaTeX but must be just like Word". | |
| Nov 7, 2011 at 20:55 | comment | added | Werner♦ |
The MWE \documentclass{article} \usepackage{lmodern} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \begin{document} \fontsize{12bp}{14bp}\selectfont foo \fontsize{12pt}{14pt}\selectfont foo \end{document} produces a document with 2 different font sizes for foo: the first is 12bp and the second is 12pt. lmodern has this modification by default. Is this what you're after?
|
|
| Nov 7, 2011 at 20:42 | comment | added | doncherry |
Bonus question: Which "point" is preferable if I have a too high / too low page requirement to fulfill? ;)
|
|
| Nov 7, 2011 at 20:39 | history | asked | doncherry | CC BY-SA 3.0 |