You don't. Word isn't a typesetting program. You can format a document that
you intend to distribute multiple copies of, but how you format it depends
on what you want.

By the way, you should put your question and relevant details in the big
space provided for it, rather than just use the subject line.

Well, I use it for typesetting--in the sense that I use it to create
camera-ready copy for producing books and other published materials.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"Daiya Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
You don't. Word isn't a typesetting program. You can format a document
that
you intend to distribute multiple copies of, but how you format it depends
on what you want.

By the way, you should put your question and relevant details in the big
space provided for it, rather than just use the subject line.

Very true. We can equally well call that formatting, though. To me,
typesetting implies a number of extra things--ligatures, page layout, etc,
that Word doesn't do, and that trying to get it to do will just make one
unhappy.

Granted, had there been some details about what the OP meant by "typeset", I
would probably not have quibbled over it.


On 4/20/05 3:49 PM, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

Well, I use it for typesetting--in the sense that I use it to create
camera-ready copy for producing books and other published materials.


You don't. Word isn't a typesetting program. You can format a document
that
you intend to distribute multiple copies of, but how you format it depends
on what you want.

By the way, you should put your question and relevant details in the big
space provided for it, rather than just use the subject line.

Hi Suzanne,

Do you create PDFs from the Word files? Or PostScript print files?

If not, the publisher would need to have exactly the same setup as you =
(Word version, fonts, printer driver)?

Regards,
Klaus



"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:
Well, I use it for typesetting--in the sense that I use it to create
camera-ready copy for producing books and other published=20
materials.

"Daiya Mitchell" wrote:
Very true. We can equally well call that formatting, though. =20
To me, typesetting implies a number of extra things--ligatures,=20
page layout, etc, that Word doesn't do, and that trying to get it=20
to do will just make one unhappy.
=20
Granted, had there been some details about what the OP meant by=20
"typeset", I would probably not have quibbled over it.



Hi Daya,

Nobody I know uses ligatures, and I'd very much disagree about page =
layout.

Word beats Quark and Indesign by lengths in layout options IMO (tables, =
frames, text boxes, the ability to automate tedious layout tasks with =
macros).
Usually, given certain layout specifications, I would usually think I'd =
get the desired result in Word in a fraction of the time, and I'd =
probably wouldn't have to mess with the text at all.
In DTP programs, I'd often need to mangle the text heavily, which makes =
it completely worthless for re-use.

Main reasons to use DTP programs, I think, are color separation and =
typographic quality (not too good in Word because the placement of =
characters isn't as exact, and the line breaking algorithms are worse =
and don't offer much customization).

Regards,
Klaus

Since you are the professional, I totally withdraw my comment.

Daiya


On 4/20/05 8:01 PM, "Klaus Linke" wrote:

"Daiya Mitchell" wrote:
Very true. We can equally well call that formatting, though.
To me, typesetting implies a number of extra things--ligatures,
page layout, etc, that Word doesn't do, and that trying to get it
to do will just make one unhappy.

Granted, had there been some details about what the OP meant by
"typeset", I would probably not have quibbled over it.



Hi Daya,

Nobody I know uses ligatures, and I'd very much disagree about page layout.

Word beats Quark and Indesign by lengths in layout options IMO (tables,
frames, text boxes, the ability to automate tedious layout tasks with macros).
Usually, given certain layout specifications, I would usually think I'd get
the desired result in Word in a fraction of the time, and I'd probably
wouldn't have to mess with the text at all.
In DTP programs, I'd often need to mangle the text heavily, which makes it
completely worthless for re-use.

Main reasons to use DTP programs, I think, are color separation and
typographic quality (not too good in Word because the placement of characters
isn't as exact, and the line breaking algorithms are worse and don't offer
much customization).

Regards,
Klaus

You're no fun to play with today ;-)

I guess some other professionals will flame me for the heresy...

BTW, usually I don't use the word "usually" so much (I hope).

Regards,
Klaus



"Daiya Mitchell" wrote:
Since you are the professional, I totally withdraw my comment.
=20
Daiya
=20
=20
On 4/20/05 8:01 PM, "Klaus Linke" wrote:
=20
"Daiya Mitchell" wrote:
Very true. We can equally well call that formatting, though.
To me, typesetting implies a number of extra things--ligatures,
page layout, etc, that Word doesn't do, and that trying to get it
to do will just make one unhappy.
=20
Granted, had there been some details about what the OP meant by
"typeset", I would probably not have quibbled over it.
=20
=20
=20
Hi Daya,
=20
Nobody I know uses ligatures, and I'd very much disagree about page =
layout.
=20
Word beats Quark and Indesign by lengths in layout options IMO =
(tables,
frames, text boxes, the ability to automate tedious layout tasks =
with macros).
Usually, given certain layout specifications, I would usually think =
I'd get
the desired result in Word in a fraction of the time, and I'd =
probably
wouldn't have to mess with the text at all.
In DTP programs, I'd often need to mangle the text heavily, which =
makes it
completely worthless for re-use.
=20
Main reasons to use DTP programs, I think, are color separation and
typographic quality (not too good in Word because the placement of =
characters
isn't as exact, and the line breaking algorithms are worse and don't =
offer
much customization).
=20
Regards,
Klaus

As I said, they're camera-ready; I provide hard copy. I can theoretically
provide PDFs now, but so far I mostly haven't needed to. Most of what I do
is stuff that will be taken to a quick printer (like Kinko's) or sent to an
old-fashioned commercial printer using offset presses.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"Klaus Linke" wrote in message
...
Hi Suzanne,

Do you create PDFs from the Word files? Or PostScript print files?

If not, the publisher would need to have exactly the same setup as you (Word
version, fonts, printer driver)?

Regards,
Klaus



"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:
Well, I use it for typesetting--in the sense that I use it to create
camera-ready copy for producing books and other published
materials.

Ah, I thought you only used the term out of old habit :-)

Klaus


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:
As I said, they're camera-ready; I provide hard copy. I can =
theoretically
provide PDFs now, but so far I mostly haven't needed to. Most of what =
I do
is stuff that will be taken to a quick printer (like Kinko's) or sent =
to an
old-fashioned commercial printer using offset presses.
=20
--=20
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the =
newsgroup so
all may benefit.
=20
"Klaus Linke" wrote in message
...
Hi Suzanne,
=20
Do you create PDFs from the Word files? Or PostScript print files?
=20
If not, the publisher would need to have exactly the same setup as you =
(Word
version, fonts, printer driver)?
=20
Regards,
Klaus
=20
=20
=20
"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:
Well, I use it for typesetting--in the sense that I use it to create
camera-ready copy for producing books and other published
materials.

The overwhelming majority of my work is not typesetting, anyway--that is,
not of documents for publication--but just "typing." I do a lot of
manuscripts (to be sent to publishers), consulting reports, letters, etc.
I've done a very few books (see my Web site) but mostly stuff like dance
programs, flyers, newsletters, etc.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"Klaus Linke" wrote in message
...
Ah, I thought you only used the term out of old habit :-)

Klaus


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:
As I said, they're camera-ready; I provide hard copy. I can theoretically
provide PDFs now, but so far I mostly haven't needed to. Most of what I do
is stuff that will be taken to a quick printer (like Kinko's) or sent to
an
old-fashioned commercial printer using offset presses.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup
so
all may benefit.

"Klaus Linke" wrote in message
...
Hi Suzanne,

Do you create PDFs from the Word files? Or PostScript print files?

If not, the publisher would need to have exactly the same setup as you
(Word
version, fonts, printer driver)?

Regards,
Klaus



"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:
Well, I use it for typesetting--in the sense that I use it to create
camera-ready copy for producing books and other published
materials.