21

I'm thinking of putting The LaTeX Companion, Third Edition on my wishlist for Christmas. In this regard I have a few questions:

(1) According to https://www.informit.com/store/latex-companion-parts-i-ii-3rd-edition-9780138166489?ranMID=24808 the EPUB version of books isn't finished yet. When will this happen?

(2) According to https://www.latex-project.org/help/books/tlc3-err.pdf the printed version of the books obviously contain a few errors since it's the very first printing. Is there a timetable for when the second printing will be in the stores?

Svend Tveskæg
  • 31,033

1 Answers1

30

Guess I can answer some of them.

(1) I have no idea when the epub comes out, it isn't out because I rejected the current quality. We haven't produced the epub ourselves (we have done so for the PDF) for a number of reasons.

In all honesty, I believe the best digital version will always be the PDF not the epub, unless you think our prose is a novel (which perhaps in a few places it is :-). The problem is that you can then read it on a small device (even your phone) but you can't directly use the examples, because they are going to be graphics (because otherwise an epub would be mangling the example output and that would be deadly for the purpose of the book. And, of course, the typographical quality is, say, sub-optimal, which for a book that tries to show of what it documents is a bit of an issue. The PDF on the other hand, already works fairly well on smaller tablets (see recent review in TUGboat on that).

If you want both the print and the digital then I would buy them directly from the publisher as there is a nice bundle price. See the LaTeX project website for more information. If you are a TUG member then going via tug.org gets you even another reduction. Getting it sent to Europe is not so bad and worth doing if you are interested in both. From Pearson you get both the PDF and the epub (when it comes out finally) in other places most likely only the epub or the kindle (and not as a bundle with the print edition).

If you just want the digital then again going via the publisher is imho the best option.

If you just want the digital I would also do it via the publisher because of getting the PDF without DRM.

(2) yes a few (and only noticed most likely because I make this public) but none of them are in any way major (I record basically everything, include misplaced commas). Which explains why the file appears to be large. Anyway, I can (more easily) produce a new PDF but the print run is a different matter. I'm sure that the first one holds out until another Xmas unless many, many people suddenly get convinced that buying good books (or say books :-) is worth doing. So don't wait for such a reprint if you are interested in the material.

Furthermore: I manged to convince the publisher that such a book deserves a good hardcover and also ribbons (which I find extremely useful, but which are basically not used in the US these days). That limited a bit which printer/binder could be used and I was only able to get an assurance that this will be the case for the big first printing and it is totally open for later ones (and at least the ribbons are likely gone).

Guess that is roughly the situation, hope it helps.

Frank Mittelbach
  • 77,146
  • 5
    Thank you, Frank! This is indeed very helpful information. (BTW. congratulations on the book -- from the reviews that I've read, it seems to be extremely well written, just like the second edition, that I bought almost twenty years ago.) – Svend Tveskæg Dec 11 '23 at 23:43
  • 1
    Except for the size I think it is actually better, we all learned a thing or two in these two decades. – Frank Mittelbach Dec 11 '23 at 23:46
  • The publisher says the PDF requires Adobe reader. I presume that means it cannot be read on Linux. I think the price rather excludes me from your potential readers, so I'm no great loss. But other Linux users may have access to a better class of Christmas wish list ;). – cfr Dec 12 '23 at 03:56
  • 2
    @cfr I highly doubt you wouldn't be able to open the pdf on Linux. It's not as if it will have particular functionality like filling in forms or e-signing. The publisher is probably just providing information for the majority of its audience, who will use Windows. – thosphor Dec 12 '23 at 10:22
  • I've read many PDF's on Linux that somebody said required Adobe reader. That generally doesn't mean more than "There is no PDF reader included in your windows, you will need some external software", and as many people will find such a reference useless they refer to the most widely used piece of software. I have also encountered PDF's with some integrated functionality that worked like crap in anything but Adobe Reader, but it also worked like crap in free PDF readers on windows, so it had nothing to do with Linux. – Henrik supports the community Dec 12 '23 at 16:48
  • 1
    @Henriksupportsthecommunity I've come across a number of ebooks and PDFs which can only be viewed in Adobe reader because they rely on Adobe to enforce distribution/printing restrictions. Interlibrary loans from the British Library are in this category, but so are lots of ebooks purchased by libraries. So I'd be reluctant to buy any PDF which the publisher advertised as requiring Adobe reader. It's easy enough to say 'requires a PDF viewer such as the free Adobe reader' or 'requires Adobe reader (or another PDF viewer)' if that's what they mean. – cfr Dec 12 '23 at 17:43
  • @cfr the publisher is wrong if they say that. I'm not aware that Acrobat Reader is in anyway special compared to other readers. So it will work with any reader that can display pdfs, i.e., with any reader you use to display your own documents made with LaTeX. It is simply a PDF made with LaTeX and many of the packages (including hyperref) described in the book. I guess this is a dated reference from the days when PDF was young and there was only Acrobat Reader (and they never updated their text). – Frank Mittelbach Dec 12 '23 at 19:37
  • 3
    @cfr as I said it has no DRM and it will work correctly with any reader that can display PDF correctly. If you can point me to the place where you found that statement I could try to get it changed. – Frank Mittelbach Dec 12 '23 at 19:43
  • @FrankMittelbach I know. But if I'd just looked at the publisher's page, I'd assume otherwise. I found the claim visiting https://www.informit.com/store/latex-companion-parts-i-ii-3rd-edition-9780138166489?ranMID=24808 and clicking on 'About Watermarked eBooks' which brings up a popup containing the claim. It should be in the publisher's interest to change it, since one of the advantages of not using DRM should be that Linux users might buy your books. (I assume Adobe reader enforces DRM and that's why e.g. BL PDFs require it, but I don't know.) – cfr Dec 12 '23 at 21:28
  • 5
    I bought the digital (PDF) version, along with the printed version, from the publisher. On my Mac, I have no trouble reading or navigating the PDF with the Skim app, the Preview app, and, of course, Adobe Reader. Also with xpdf. – murray Dec 12 '23 at 22:46
  • 1
    @cfr as I said I guess this statement is there in this form for ages, i.e., from the days when Acrobat Reader was essentially the only free PDF reader out there. I just told Pearson about the incorrect statement, we'll see what happens and how fast they will alter this. – Frank Mittelbach Dec 13 '23 at 16:37
  • @FrankMittelbach Thanks. I appreciate the historical point. I really raised it because I guess not everyone who might be interesting in the book will read your answer here ;). – cfr Dec 13 '23 at 16:49
  • Double word "the the", and no matching right parentheses in "such a book deserves a good hardcover and also ribbons (which I find extremely useful ...". – muzimuzhi Z Dec 14 '23 at 15:12
  • @cfr UPDATE: the folks responsible for the InformIT site said they thank us to bring this mistake to their attention and they will fix it (let's ee how fast that fix rolls out :-)) – Frank Mittelbach Dec 14 '23 at 21:13
  • Thank you for the ribbon in the print version. I wish all reference books or other big tomes had such today. – murray Dec 14 '23 at 22:10
  • @FrankMittelbach At least they admit it is a mistake ;). So there's some chance they'll change it ;). 'interesting in the book' -> 'interested in the book'. – cfr Dec 15 '23 at 03:47