Quote:
Originally Posted by ahi
I have on most occasions, whether or not I have done so in the piece I quoted, stated that I believed typography to not be machine-solvable without human-level artificial intelligence.
|
Again - in order to claim that you need to define "solved". Given that you accept there is no perfect layout, the answer must be that solved means a layout is produced which meets somebody's criteria of acceptability. Now, the issue is who is that somebody? I assert that, as far as I'm concerned, it's me.
Quote:
|
The different opinions mostly come from individuals whose work and profession have nothing whatsoever to do with bookmaking. To be frank, I am not going to pretend they ought to be considered on equal footing with definitions of typography not debased by an ardent desire to only read HTML books in the future.
|
The market is mostly made up of people who don't work in bookmaking,and yes - their opinions are just as valuable as yours. A solution which satisfies the vast majority of these will do very well, irrespective of whether or not there are theoretical objections by "experts".
Quote:
|
And surely you will concede that whether or not experts can agree on what is perfect hyphenation, there are objective standards in most written languages as to what is incorrect hyphenation.
|
Indeed, but different people will have different levels of sensitivity to minor violations of what are, essentially, arbitrary rules.
Quote:
|
No. My actual level of expertise, which is moderate at best, however does. Much as my car-mechanic's musings of my car's road-worthiness are far more valid than my own, regardless of whether or not I am satisfied with its operation.
|
That's a completely false analogy, as road-worthiness is an objective measure and requires technical understanding to evaluate. Beauty, on the other hand, is in the eye of the beholder.
/JB